As a historian, and knowing how the publication and peer-review process works, and what enters the canon of accepted historical works (be it literature, research, documentaries, museums, etc)... maybe, maybe not - as history is written by the victors, as well as those who control the institutions. Those who currently control those institutions will see to it that not a single positive word is ever written about Trump, or any piece of research that does anything to make Trump look even remotely decent ever published.

I couldn't even get a piece published that never mentioned Trump, but was a simple economic analysis of the last 20 years, because it dared to mention the state of the economy in 2017-2019 and compare it to the years (and therefor, administration) before it. Just the implication alone was enough to be rejected. Despite sound research, and it even being mentioned that it was all sound, the research was rejected for daring to attribute anything positive to the years in which Trump was the president, and the economic policies (and outcomes) that came out of those years