‘No right to fire her’: Artist weighs in on Smithsonian director controversy

An attendee walks past a Donald Trump painting by artist Julian Raven in the exhibition hall at the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference. Photo / Ricky Carioti, the Washington Post

In 2015, artist Julian Raven had what he describes as a “prophetic experience” that led him to paint the most significant work of his life.

It was of then-candidate Donald Trump, eyes twinkling, next to the sun rising over America and a bald eagle holding the United States flag in its talons.

He called it “Unafraid and Unashamed”.

A reproduction of the 2.4m by 4.8m painting toured the country and was exhibited at the Republican National Convention in 2016. Raven got to meet Trump in Trump Tower.

However, when the artist submitted his masterpiece for inclusion in the National Portrait Gallery that year, Director Kim Sajet brusquely rejected it, Raven told the Washingtonian in 2019, saying that the painting was “too pro-Trump” and “too political”, and also: “I know this is hard, and no artist ever wants to hear this, but the painting is no good”.

Sajet didn’t comment at the time on their interaction, which by then had become the subject of litigation.

Raven sued her in 2017, alleging in his self-authored legal complaint that the Portrait Gallery violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution, depriving him of free speech and his right to due process.

He lost. He appealed. He lost again.

Now Trump is back in office, unafraid and unashamed.

And last month, the President said that he was firing Sajet for being “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI”, referring to diversity, equity and inclusion.

He did not cite a legal authority under which he could oust the director, and Sajet has continued to report to work. The White House provided a list of 17 instances it believes support the President’s claims about her.

The incident with Raven and his Trump painting is fourth on that list.

“I laughed when I read the headline,” Raven said last week in an interview, as the drama unfolded.

If Trump gets his way and the Portrait Gallery hires a new, presumably conservative director – although hiring and firing is the decision of Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch – it’s possible that “Unafraid and Unashamed” could end up in the museum after all.

“It would shake Washington,” he said. “Little old Julian Raven, who they ridiculed and mocked and they kicked him to the kerb year after year, was right after all.”

Some observers may have rolled their eyes at Raven’s litigation over his rejected painting, but it did seek to elucidate the Smithsonian’s curious legal status.

The institution was established as a trust by Englishman James Smithson and was lawfully created by Congress in 1846. It is guided by a board of regents led by the Vice-President, Chief Justice, elected representatives and appointed private citizens.

So, is the Smithsonian part of the Government? Or is it a private entity that has government officials on its board?

On its website, the Smithsonian defines itself as a “trust instrumentality of the United States” that is not an executive branch agency but “enjoys the immunity of the United States from lawsuits, unless such suits are authorised by Congress under specific statutes”, including the Federal Tort Claims Act, under which Raven attempted to amend his initial suit.

In his ruling on Raven’s lawsuit, District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump-appointed judge, offered some clarity.

“The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does not limit the Gallery’s art decisions, because it protects private speech, rather than curtailing government speech,” McFadden wrote.

“Nor does the Fifth Amendment apply, as Mr Raven has no legal right to the Gallery’s consideration … In sum, despite its philanthropic mien, the Smithsonian is a government institution through and through.”

Members of Congress and the board of regents have said that the President has no right to fire Sajet because that authority belongs to Bunch, the secretary. The Smithsonian has not yet commented on Sajet’s firing. The board of regents was widely expected to discuss the issue during its meeting today.

“I’m sort of hoping that Sajet will sue,” Raven told the Washington Post, but that could present some challenges.

“It was the Department of Justice that defends Sajet all throughout the legal wranglings that I had. If she goes knocking on Pam Bondi’s door for help, well, you know what’s going to happen, right?”

Raven resubmitted his painting to the Portrait Gallery for consideration once more after Trump’s second victory. He says he copied contacts from the US Doge Service, as well as Elon Musk – and received a polite rejection letter from the gallery.

Regardless of what he thinks about Sajet, Raven says he believes that, under the institution’s current structure, the president “has no right to fire her”.

He believes that Congress needs to amend the Smithsonian Act of 1846 and restructure the board of regents.

Yesterday, the artist wrote to Lindsey Halligan, the Trump special assistant and senior associate staff secretary who was named in the executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”, which aims to “restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness” by removing “improper ideology” from the organisation.

“By encouraging a majority-led Congress to finally amend the Smithsonian Act of 1846, the President can bypass the institutional blockade of the Board of Regents and act through proper legal channels to reform the Smithsonian Institution - beginning with the removal of Kim Sajet,” wrote Raven, copying a Post reporter on the message.

He called his proposal the “Smithsonian Reform and Accountability Act”, and suggested six Republican lawmakers who might be able to sponsor it.

He also encouraged Halligan to read his memoir about the lawsuit, titled “Odious and Cerberus”, and to attend the news conference he had planned to conduct on the footpath in front of the Smithsonian Castle, during the regents’ meeting.

“I remain at your service for further legal reference or co-ordination as needed,” the artist added.

Despite his eagerness to help the Trump Administration to end Sajet’s career at the Portrait Gallery, Raven is not a Trump supporter any more.

He says he voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, but not in 2024, because of his disapproval of the President’s role in the events of January 6, 2021.

At the time, he called for the Portrait Gallery to hang a black cloth over the photograph of Trump the museum had put on display. He publicly called for Trump’s resignation.

The President “disgraced the office of the presidency”, Raven told the Post. “He should have been held to account.”

Raven called Trump an “amoral transactional pragmatist”, saying he prays for him and the Trump family.

But, “listen, I’m an artist”, says Raven, chuckling. “I mean, I was hoping my portrait would have received at least some attention, positively.”

Maybe it still will, if the next gallery director makes a different assessment of the merits of his artwork.

“Her replacement will be named shortly,” wrote Trump in his Truth Social post saying Sajet was fired. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

So if the President gets his way and replaces her, and the next director of the National Portrait Gallery decides that Raven’s portrait is fit for display that would make him famous for a portrait of a President he no longer supports.

Well, “maybe that’s just the journey I’m on”, he said.