Kim Sajet Resigns as National Portrait Gallery Director Amid Trump Clash

---

Full Story

Kim Sajet, the longtime director of the National Portrait Gallery, reportedly resigned on June 13, 2025, following a public dispute with President Trump, who claimed on May 30, 2025, that he had fired her. The Smithsonian Institution, which oversees the gallery, asserted its authority over personnel decisions, stating they are handled by its secretary and Board of Regents. Sajet described her departure as a decision made in the best interests of the institution. This move has sparked debate about executive influence over cultural institutions.

The Smithsonian operates as an independent entity, managing 21 museums, including the National Portrait Gallery. Its funding, nearly two-thirds from Congress, supports its vast network of cultural and research facilities.

MEDIA REPORTING

See how news sources on all sides are covering this story.

Left 35% | Right 26% | Center 30% | Unrated 9%

The Context

On May 30, 2025, President Trump announced on social media that he had terminated Sajet’s employment. The Smithsonian quickly countered, clarifying that only its secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch III, and the Board of Regents hold such authority.

Sajet, the first woman to lead the National Portrait Gallery, served for over 12 years. She focused on diversifying the gallery’s collection to reflect a broader American narrative.

In her resignation statement, Sajet emphasized putting the museum first, avoiding direct mention of Trump’s claims. She expressed pride in fostering a more inclusive portrayal of American history.

The Smithsonian’s Board of Regents includes prominent figures like the Chief Justice and Vice President, ensuring oversight of institutional decisions. This structure aims to maintain the Smithsonian’s nonpartisan stance.

Trump’s attempt to fire Sajet raised concerns about presidential overreach into independent cultural bodies. Congressional Democrats labeled the move as lacking legal basis, citing the Smithsonian’s autonomy.

Some support greater executive influence over cultural institutions to align with national values. Others argue this threatens the independence needed for unbiased scholarship and curation.