A second Smithsonian Institution chief has resigned after facing political pressure from President Donald Trump [1].
The departure marks a recurring pattern of tension between the White House and the leadership of the nation's most prominent museums. This trend raises questions about the independence of cultural institutions in Washington, D.C., and the influence of executive power over curated history.
Kim Sajet, the former director of the National Portrait Gallery, said the current situation is a sense of déjà vu [1]. Sajet previously left her own position after becoming a target of President Trump [1].
President Trump said the most recent director was a "highly partisan person" [2]. This characterization preceded attempts by the administration to remove the official from her post [2].
The director eventually resigned, though the timing followed a period of public friction. The resignation occurred two weeks after President Trump said he had already fired the director [2].
The Smithsonian Institution operates as a trust and is not a federal agency, though it receives significant government funding. This unique structure is designed to protect its curators and directors from direct political interference, a safeguard that appears increasingly fragile under current administration tactics [1].
Sajet and other observers of the institution said that the targeting of museum leadership often coincides with disagreements over how historical figures are portrayed or how the museums handle political narratives. The pressure on the second chief mirrors the trajectory of Sajet's own exit from the National Portrait Gallery [1].
“The resignation follows claims by President Donald Trump that the director was a partisan figure.”
The repeated exit of Smithsonian leaders under political pressure suggests a shift in the relationship between the U.S. executive branch and its national cultural repositories. By targeting directors for perceived partisanship, the administration may be attempting to align the curation of American history and art with specific political narratives, potentially undermining the academic and curatorial autonomy of the institution.
