Smithsonian board rejects Trump's attempt to fire top leader

Transcript

Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.

Geoff Bennett: At the end of March, President Trump signed an executive order accusing the Smithsonian Institution of promoting — quote — “narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”

Since then, the leaders of the Smithsonian have been under the microscope.

Senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown has more for our series Art in Action, exploring the intersection of art and democracy as part of our Canvas coverage.

Jeffrey Brown: At the end of may, President Trump announced he was firing Kim Sajet, director of the National Portrait Gallery, a Smithsonian museum.

In a TRUTH Social post, he accused her of being a highly partisan person and a strong supporter of DEI. For now, though, Sajet remains in her job. Yesterday, the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents met and issued a statement declaring that all personnel decisions are made by and subject to the direction of Secretary Bunch, with oversight by the board, and that Bunch has the board’s support.

But it also directed him to take steps to — quote — “ensure unbiased content” at Smithsonian museums.

And, for more, I’m joined by Philip Kennicott. He’s Pulitzer Prize-winning art and architecture critic for The Washington Post.

Thanks so much for joining us.

So, first, a backing of Lonnie Bunch, an assertion that the Smithsonian has the right to fire and hire people, that sounds to be like pushing back a bit against President Trump. What do you make of it?

Philip Kennicott, The Washington Post: Yes, I think it’s a diplomatic, but firm assertion of the prerogative of the secretary, Lonnie Bunch, to make the decision that the president was trying to make for him, which was to fire one of the top leaders of the Smithsonian.

Jeffrey Brown: And so Kim Sajet’s position as director of the National Portrait Gallery, where does that seem to stand?

Philip Kennicott: I think, for now, it’s secure.

But the same statement also committed the Smithsonian to a very thorough overview of all of the content of its museums. And it really depends on how that overview plays out. If it plays out as the vice president, J.D. Vance, suggests that he would like it to play out, looking for any signs of what the administration considers partisanship, then it’s hard to see Kim Sajet’s job can be preserved.

But if it’s an honest and direct look using the usual standards the Smithsonian and other academic institutions have used for this kind of thing, then logically she really should be safe.

Jeffrey Brown: Well, you mentioned Vice President Vance. And we should say he sits on the Board of Regents. So he was at that meeting yesterday.

What is known about his role and about what the administration is trying to say right now?

Philip Kennicott: Well, it was a closed-door meeting. So what role he played within the meeting itself that, we don’t know yet.

But he’s been very critical of institutions like the Smithsonian. He’s been critical of foundations that support the humanities and historic research and universities. So it’s a reasonable guess that he is probably driving very hard for the president’s stated opposition to the continuing service of Kim Sajet’s in that role.

Jeffrey Brown: Now, tell me more about Lonnie Bunch and the pressures he’s been under that we have seen and where you see his position now.

Does he seem to be safe in his role?

Philip Kennicott: Lonnie Bunch has enormous credibility. He was the man who brought the National Museum of African American History and Culture to fruition, which was a long and very complicated project.

He is a well-liked and well-respected secretary of the Smithsonian, but he is also a supporter of the Smithsonian’s basic values. And those are coming into conflict with the administration because, fundamentally, they define the process and doing of history very differently than people like Lonnie Bunch and most of the Smithsonian curators do.

Jeffrey Brown: So as to the second part of the statement that came from the Smithsonian board yesterday, that Lonnie Bunch and the Smithsonian are instructed to ensure no bias,now, how do we read that? How would they even take that?

Philip Kennicott: Well, I think basically what this does, it kicks the can down the road for an even more potentially problematic crisis a few months from now.

They’re going to have to report back to the regents. And, hopefully, that means reporting back to the president, because he’s taken such a direct interest in this. And they’re going to have to defend the scholarship that they have done. I think it’s reasonable for an institution like the Smithsonian to periodically do an overview of its content.

And there’s nothing strange or problematic about that. But if this is done under pressure from the administration to find what they consider partisanship, not what Smithsonian considers partisanship, then I think the Smithsonian is going to be in a new crisis just a few months for now.

Jeffrey Brown: Now, of course, this is not happening in a vacuum. So put it in broader perspective. We have seen, of course, as you well know, the president taking control himself of the Kennedy Center, firing the librarian of Congress, firing the head of the National Archives, many cuts to the NEA.

What’s the larger context here?

Philip Kennicott: From all of those examples, it’s becoming ever more clear that the administration isn’t just pursuing the older conservative idea that the government shouldn’t be supporting these institutions for financial reasons, they should be out of the business of giving to the NEA or the NEH.

Rather, this is about controlling the content. We have seen the attacks on Harvard University and other universities. We have seen the rescission of grant money. And, finally, I think we should look forward to 2026, which is a big celebration, the 250th anniversary of the country, in which public history is going to be very much in the foreground.

And my sense is, the administration wants to control the telling of that history, and they want to move it away from the sort of objective inquiry that Smithsonian and places like Harvard have done and more towards a celebratory, hagiographic history that focuses on sort of American accomplishment and heroes.

Jeffrey Brown: So coming back to the Smithsonian itself, what are you looking for next? What do we watch for to know how this might play out?

Philip Kennicott: Well, simply by making the threat to fire Kim Sajet, the president has effectively put the entire Smithsonian on notice.

And I would argue he’s put the whole museum sector on notice. Any museum that is taking federal money or federal money derived from state money has got to be wondering, what’s in it for us at this point with the administration watching so closely?

So the things I would be watching are the upcoming exhibitions and events, especially places like the National Portrait Gallery. And that includes an exhibition of the African American artist Amy Sherald, who’s been enormously successful and popular, and a triennial competition that the Smithsonian hosts for portraiture, which often gets a sharper-edged, more innovative, avant-garde crowd.

And that is likely to be something that brings it more directly into conflict.

Jeffrey Brown: All right, Philip Kennicott of The Washington Post, thanks so much.

Philip Kennicott: Thanks for having me.