The Evolution of Portraiture and Its Reflection of American Diversity
When the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery was established through congressional legislation in 1962, its initial scope narrowly defined portraiture as “painted or sculpted likenesses.” The founding legislation also explicitly used male pronouns when referencing the museum’s future leadership, stating that appointments and salaries would be determined by the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents, with “his” being the default pronoun. This language underscored the exclusivity of the institution’s early vision, which primarily celebrated traditional, Western notions of portraiture and leadership.
However, by 1976, Congress recognized the need to broaden this perspective. An amendment expanded the definition of portraiture to include photographs and “reproductions thereof,” made through any process. This legislative change reflected a growing awareness that the American story was far more diverse than the original framework suggested. As the museum’s collection grew, it became evident that many Americans-particularly those who were non-White, female, or from marginalized communities-had historically been excluded from the visual narrative of national identity. Yet, their contributions and identities are vital to understanding the full scope of American history and culture.
Pioneering Leadership and Expanding Representation
In 2013, Kim Sajet made history as the first woman to lead the National Portrait Gallery. Her appointment marked a significant shift in the institution’s approach to representation. Building upon the 1976 legislative amendments, Sajet actively worked to redefine what constitutes a portrait and who deserves to be depicted within the gallery’s walls. Under her leadership, the collection diversified to include not only traditional painted portraits but also photographs, digital prints, sculptures, video installations, mixed-media pieces, and paper cutouts. This expanded scope aimed to reflect the multifaceted identities of Americans-highlighting women, people of color, and members of the LGBTQ+ community more prominently than ever before.
Political Interference and Threats to Cultural Independence
Recently, Sajet’s leadership has come under threat. Last week, President Donald Trump attempted to dismiss her, continuing a troubling pattern of undermining the leadership of major cultural institutions. This move echoes earlier dismissals, such as Deborah Rutter at the Kennedy Center and Carla Hayden at the Library of Congress, both of whom broke new ground as women leaders. Trump’s justification for Sajet’s removal was vague, citing her “partisan” stance and support for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives-charges that critics argue are unfounded and politically motivated.
When Sajet was appointed, the Smithsonian praised her diverse background-born in Nigeria, educated in Australia, and deeply rooted in American cultural organizations-as emblematic of the institution’s inclusive vision. Her tenure included notable achievements, such as acquiring the earliest known photograph of an American president (an 1843 daguerreotype of John Quincy Adams) and curating exhibitions like the 2023 exploration of colonialism, “1898: U.S. Imperial Visions and Revisions.” These accomplishments demonstrate her commitment to a comprehensive and truthful portrayal of American history.
The Legal and Institutional Dilemmas
The question of whether Trump has the authority to dismiss Sajet remains unresolved. A Smithsonian spokesperson declined to comment on her current status, emphasizing the institution’s independence from direct presidential control. While federally funded, the Smithsonian operates autonomously, with its directors appointed by the Board of Regents. Nonetheless, Trump’s efforts to remove Sajet threaten to set a dangerous precedent: if successful, it could allow political figures to influence not only leadership but also the content and mission of the nation’s premier cultural institutions.
This situation poses a profound challenge for Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III, who is currently navigating severe budget cuts from Congress. Among the threatened reductions is funding for the upcoming National Museum of the American Latino. If Sajet’s position becomes a bargaining chip, it risks compromising the Smithsonian’s core mission-telling honest, inclusive stories about America’s past and present.
Historical Precedents of Censorship and Political Influence
The Smithsonian’s history of yielding to political pressure is long and troubling. In 2010, Secretary G. Wayne Clough censored an exhibition featuring LGBTQ+ portraits after conservative Christian groups protested. The removal of a controversial video by artist David Wojnarowicz, which increased the exhibition’s popularity elsewhere, exemplified the institution’s susceptibility to external influence. Even earlier, in 1995, the National Air and Space Museum faced controversy over an exhibit about the Enola Gay, the aircraft that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The debate over how to present this history-balancing factual accuracy with veterans’ sensitivities-highlighted the ongoing tension between artistic integrity and political interference.
The Broader Threat to Cultural Autonomy
These incidents, while significant, pale in comparison to the potential consequences of a president asserting direct control over museum content and hiring decisions. Trump’s broader campaign to influence arts, culture, and historical narratives has already led to declines in arts funding, with subscriptions at institutions like the Kennedy Center dropping by over a third in recent months. Small arts organizations nationwide are also suffering from the loss of critical federal grants from agencies such as the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Unlike previous conflicts that targeted specific exhibitions, Trump’s current approach aims to reshape the entire cultural landscape through ideological control. If successful, this could undermine the very foundation of independent cultural institutions, transforming them into tools for political propaganda rather than spaces for open dialogue and truth.
The Future of the Smithsonian and Its Leadership
The Smithsonian is now at a crossroads. As it seeks new directors for key museums-including the American Art Museum and the National Museum of African American History and Culture-the question arises: what kind of leadership would be willing to accept a climate where political interference dictates content and appointments? The potential removal of Sajet, a respected leader committed to diversity and historical accuracy, signals a troubling shift away from the institution’s foundational principles.
The upcoming Smithsonian Board of Regents meeting will be pivotal. While some may advocate for a compromise-perhaps reassigning Sajet to a different role-such measures risk emboldening political actors and further eroding the institution’s independence. Confronting this challenge head-on may lead to protracted legal battles and congressional disputes, but avoiding confrontation could set a dangerous precedent, allowing political figures to dictate the narrative of America’s cultural history.
Defending the Integrity of America’s Cultural Heritage
Ultimately, the fate of the Smithsonian’s independence hinges on the resolve of its leadership and governing bodies. Their decisions will resonate beyond the walls of the institution, shaping the future of American cultural and historical discourse. Upholding the principles of free expression, academic integrity, and inclusive storytelling is essential to preserving the Smithsonian’s role as a beacon of knowledge and truth in a time of increasing political polarization. The choices made now will determine whether these venerable institutions continue to serve as guardians of America’s diverse stories or become pawns in a broader effort to rewrite history for political gain.
