Not so Sublime: What the Cancellation of Sherald’s Retrospective Reveals About Curatorial Autonomy

January 22, 2026

Presidential Portraits Unveiled Feb. 12, 2018 and a Past Exhibition that Never Was.

By Rebecca Bennett

Nearly seven years in the making, mid-career retrospective of Amy Sherald’s works at the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) in DC was cancelled by the artist. Amy Sherald is well known for her intimate, effusive portraits asserting the place of contemporary Black Americans in the canon of portraiture. Like all of her work, Trans Forming Liberty, 2024, exudes a commanding presence. At ten feet tall, the painting reimagines the Statue of Liberty as trans model and performance artist Arewà Basit. Wearing a hot-pink wig and rich royal blue gown, Basit poses assertively against a bubblegum pink background, a torch bursting with golden flowers held aloft in her left hand.^[1]

Had Trans Forming Liberty been exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery (NPG), the eye-catching painting would certainly have attracted attention. Now, the portrait’s absence is attracting scrutiny of a different variety. The work is at the center of controversy surrounding Sherald’s touring exhibition, American Sublime. The show, scheduled to open September 19th at the NPG, would have been the museum’s first major exhibition of a Black contemporary artist.^[2] The exhibition first opened at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMoMA) in 2024 and traveled to the Whitney Museum in New York earlier this year.^[3] In July of 2025, however, Sherald chose to cancel the show’s run in Washington, D.C., citing censorship concerns when curators informed her they were considering removing the painting in question from the exhibition.^[4] To Sherald, this removal constituted blatant and intentional erasure; “it’s clear that institutional fear shaped by a broader climate of political hostility toward trans lives played a role.”^[5]

The cancellation came amid increasing attempts by the current administration to assert control over the Smithsonian Institution’s programming. On March 27, President Trump published an executive order 14253 accusing the Smithsonian Institution of “[promoting] narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive,” and outlined his intentions to remove critical historical perspectives from the institution’s exhibitions.^[6] Facing pressure from the President, former director of the NPG Kim Sajet resigned in June.^[7] In August, the administration alerted Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch of its plans to conduct a “comprehensive internal review” of programming related to the nation’s 250th anniversary.^[8]

Within this context, Sherald’s decision to revoke her show from the NPG received significant media coverage, with the artist herself giving multiple statements firmly indicating her refusal to compromise the integrity of her work.^[9] The Smithsonian publicly disputed Sherald’s claims, clarifying that curators did not intend to remove the painting, but rather include a video contextualizing the work.^[10] Yet, reproduction of Trans Forming Liberty later appeared on the White House website amongst objectionable works of art, this one being intended for display at the Smithsonian.^[11]

Notably, there is no evidence that the NPG received any direct orders to rethink the content of the exhibition. Still, Sherald’s case is interesting, not because it reveals something new about the current administration’s broader aims in enforcing a conservative ideology, but rather because it illuminates the fragility of the Smithsonian’s curatorial independence, and that of museums across the nation more broadly.

Censorship: A Gray Zone

In January 2025, a survey of members of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) published in collaboration with Artists at Risk Coalition (ARC) and Pen America reported that 65% of respondents experienced pressure to censor an exhibit at some point in their career.^[12] Perhaps of greater relevance, 55% of respondents indicated that censorship is a greater problem facing museums today than it was ten years ago.^[13] These figures are confirmation that threats to autonomy are felt viscerally within the museum sector.

The consequences of such interference vary widely, however. Early in the new second term, the Trump administration has enacted widespread funding cuts, threatening many institutions’ viability. For instance, Philadelphia’s Woodmere Art Museum recently dropped their suit against the Trump Museum after a $750,000 Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) grant was terminated and later reinstated.^[14] Although funding cuts do not necessarily equate to censorship, the threat of federal fund revocation puts pressure on museums to align their programming with Trump’s ideological directives.

As Sherald’s case demonstrates, however, the line between curatorial decisions and self-censorship can become blurry. The 2025 Censorship Horizon report emphasizes that museum directors vary widely in their understanding of censorship, making it difficult to separate casualties of the curatorial process from instances of self-censorship.^[15] Curators and museum directors may choose to avoid or remove content from an exhibition in order to avoid controversy, the appearance of partisanship, or further scrutiny from external governing bodies.^[16]

This gray area exposes the precarious position museums occupy, as there is great risk in allowing curatorial freedom to become an excuse for sanitizing content. This was clearly articulated in a statement issued by the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) in August which stated, “[p]eople trust museums because they rely on independent scholarship and research, uphold high professional standards, and embrace open inquiry. When any directive dictates what should or should not be displayed, it risks narrowing the public’s window into evidence, ideas, and a full range of perspectives.”^[17] As a national institution receiving 62% of their funding from the federal government, the Smithsonian is particularly vulnerable to the executive branch’s attempts to control cultural output.^[18] Although the Smithsonian is considered an independent, research-based institution, how much freedom does it really have?

A Closer Look at Censorship at the Smithsonian

One of the country’s foremost national cultural institutions, the Smithsonian comprises twenty one museums, fourteen educational and research centers, and the National Zoo. The institution was established by Congress in 1846 with the simple mission to “increase and [diffuse] knowledge” through research and education in the realms of art, history, and science.^[19] It is uniquely organized as a public-private partnership, meaning the institution is intended to retain operational independence despite receiving a significant portion of its funding from the federal government. The institution is governed by the Board of Regents, a seventeen-member group including the Vice President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, three members each of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and nine private citizens.^[20] The current board-appointed Secretary of the Smithsonian is Lonnie G. Bunch, who has served in this position since 2019.^[21] As this structure reflects, the Smithsonian is beholden to federal influence in the form of both funding and board governance. After President’s claims to have fired Kim Sajet, former director of the NPG, the Smithsonian released a statement asserting its status as an independent and nonpartisan institution, stating that all personnel decisions are subject to the discretion of the Secretary and Board of Regents exclusively.^[22] This incident, combined with Sherald’s accusation of censorship ultimately illuminates how conditional that independence is.

While the vigor of 2025 attacks on the Smithsonian may feel new, the institution has been subject to political interference at several points throughout its history. Sherald herself cited multiple instances of attempted censorship at the Smithsonian in an August op-ed for MSNBC, emphasizing her point that “the country’s story has always been a contradiction.”^[23] In some cases, the Smithsonian has successfully asserted its autonomy, while in others it has submitted to pressures to alter controversial content. For instance, according to the Smithsonian archives, commissioners at the institution successfully resisted President Wilson’s 1910s resegregation of federal workplaces, and in 1929 the Institution mounted a groundbreaking exhibition featuring the work of Black painters and sculptors.^[24]

More recently, however, there have been notable instances in which the Smithsonian has altered exhibitions in response to complaints from various sources. In 1995, significant controversy arose concerning an Air and Space Museum exhibition featuring the aircraft used to drop the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.^[25] Public outcry over the exhibition’s critical stance towards the United State’s military operations ultimately led the Air and Space Museum to cancel the exhibition. The NPG also received backlash from Christian activists in 2010, leading curators to remove a work by David Wojnarowicz from the landmark exhibition Hide/Seek which explored the fluidity of gender and sexuality in modern portraiture.^[26] As these cases demonstrate, dissent can manifest from a variety of sources beyond the federal government. Ultimately, the Smithsonian’s ability to withstand criticism falls on individual directors and curators. While Secretary Bunch has asserted his intention to maintain the institution’s autonomy from the executive branch, the American Sublime that did not manifest detracts from the weight of this promise.^[27]

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the Smithsonian, as well as museums across the nation, face significant pressures to conform to the current political administration. Yet, as Sherald’s case demonstrates, threat of censorship is a complex issue with few strict legal barriers protecting cultural institutions from outside influences. Individual leaders are often responsible for asserting their authority when controversy arises. One potential avenue to combat these threats may be for museums to develop specific internal censorship (including self-censorship) policies.^[28] By outlining agreed-upon definitions and approved responses, museums may be better equipped to weather interference when it arises. Whether Sherald’s case is an anomaly or portends more drastic erosion of speech, it illuminates the slippery nature of self-censorship in particular. While censorship can fall into subjective territory, protecting the independence of artists and museums from federal oversight is vital to maintaining the credibility of arts institutions across the nation.

About the author

Rebecca Bennett (Fall 2025 Intern, Center for Art Law) is a recent graduate of McGill University with a BA in Art History and International Development. She is working to pursue a career in Art Law.

Suggested Readings:

1. Friedman, Jonathan, et.al, The Censorship Horizon, PEN America, January 14, 2025. https://pen.org/report/the-censorship-horizon/
2. Sherald, Amy, Censorship has taken hold at the Smithsonian. I refused to play along., MSNBC, August 24, 2025. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/amy-sherald-american-sublime-smithsonian-trump-rcna225362
3. Trump, Donald, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, Executive Order, March 27, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/
4. Lauren’s article

Select References

1. Mouly, Francoise, Amy Sherald’s Trans Forming Liberty, The New Yorker, August 4, 2025. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cover-story/cover-story-2025-08-11 ↑
2. Pogrebin, Robin, Amy Sherald Cancels Her Smithsonian Show, Citing Censorship, The New York Times, July 24, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/arts/design/amy-sherald-smithsonian-censorship.html ↑
3. Id. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/arts/design/amy-sherald-smithsonian-censorship.html ↑
4. Id. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/arts/design/amy-sherald-smithsonian-censorship.html ↑
5. Id. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/arts/design/amy-sherald-smithsonian-censorship.html ↑
6. Trump, Donald, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, Executive Order, March 27, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/ ↑
7. Chao-Fong, Léonie, Director of National Portrait Gallery resigns after Trump’s effort to fire her, The Guardian, June 13, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/13/kim-sajet-resigns-national-portrait-gallery-director ↑
8. Farfan, Isa, Trump Wants “American Exceptionalism” at the Smithsonian. Will He Get It?, Hyperallergic, August 13, 2025. https://hyperallergic.com/1033993/trump-american-exceptionalism-smithsonian/ ↑
9. Mouly, Francoise, Amy Sherald’s Trans Forming Liberty, The New Yorker, August 4, 2025. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cover-story/cover-story-2025-08-11 ↑
10. Pogrebin, Robin, Amy Sherald Cancels Her Smithsonian Show, Citing Censorship, The New York Times, July 24, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/arts/design/amy-sherald-smithsonian-censorship.html ↑
11. The White House, President Trump is Right About the Smithsonian, The White House Newsletter, August 21, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/08/president-trump-is-right-about-the-smithsonian/ ↑
12. Friedman, Jonathan, et.al, The Censorship Horizon, PEN America, January 14, 2025. https://pen.org/report/the-censorship-horizon/ ↑
13. Id. https://pen.org/report/the-censorship-horizon/ ↑
14. Aton, Francesca, Woodmere Art Museum Drops Lawsuit Against Trump Administration, ARTnews, September 8, 2025. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/woodmere-art-museum-drops-lawsuit-against-trump-administration-1234751135/ ↑
15. Friedman, Jonathan, et.al, The Censorship Horizon, PEN America, January 14, 2025. https://pen.org/report/the-censorship-horizon/ ↑
16. Id. https://pen.org/report/the-censorship-horizon/ ↑
17. American Alliance of Museums, AAM Statement on the Growing Threats of Censorship Against U.S. Museums, August 15, 2025. https://www.aam-us.org/2025/08/15/aam-statement-on-the-growing-threats-of-censorship-against-u-s-museums/ ↑
18. Smithsonian Institution, Facts About the Smithsonian Institution, June 18, 2025. https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/factsheets/facts-about-smithsonian-institution-short ↑
19. Smithsonian, About the Smithsonian, last accessed September 22, 2025. https://www.si.edu/about ↑
20. Id. https://www.si.edu/about ↑
21. Smithsonian, Our Leadership, last accessed September 22, 2025. https://www.si.edu/about/bios/lonnie-g-bunch-III ↑
22. Smithsonian, Smithsonian Statement on Board of Regents and Secretary Governance, News Release, June 9, 2025. https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/smithsonian-statement ↑
23. Sherald, Amy, Censorship has taken hold at the Smithsonian. I refused to play along., MSNBC, August 24, 2025. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/amy-sherald-american-sublime-smithsonian-trump-rcna225362 ↑
24. Smithsonian Institution Archives, African American Groundbreakers at the Smithsonian: Challenges and Achievements, last accessed September 22, 2025. https://siarchives.si.edu/history/featured-topics/African-Americans/american-negro-artists ↑
25. Wright, Jennifer, Exhibiting the Enola Gay, Smithsonian Institution Archives, June 25, 2020. https://siarchives.si.edu/blog/exhibiting-enola-gay ↑
26. Pilkington, Ed, Christian activists force Smithsonian to pull Aids video from show, The Guardian, December 1, 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/dec/01/smithsonian-pulls-christ-video ↑
27. Pogrebin, Robin and Graham Bowley, Smithsonian Responds to Trump’s Demand for a Review of its Exhibits, The New York Times, September 3, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/03/arts/design/smithsonian-bunch-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare ↑
28. Friedman, Jonathan, et.al, The Censorship Horizon, PEN America, January 14, 2025. https://pen.org/report/the-censorship-horizon/#heading-6 ↑