The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery has pulled the plug on artist Amy Sherald’s upcoming exhibit, “American Sublime,” following sharp criticism from Vice President JD Vance over its woke messaging.
Fox News reported that the controversy centers on a painting titled “Trans Forming Liberty,” which reimagines the Statue of Liberty as a transgender woman, sparking a heated debate about the role of national symbols in art and the boundaries of expression in public institutions like the Smithsonian.
Let’s rewind to the beginning: President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year, empowering Vance to oversee the removal of exhibits or programs at Smithsonian museums deemed inconsistent with American values or federal policy.
Vance didn’t waste time, raising eyebrows during a meeting with the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents by calling out Sherald’s exhibit as divisive and out of touch with the unifying mission of national museums.
At the heart of the dispute is “Trans Forming Liberty,” a striking piece that portrays the iconic statue with pink hair and a blue gown—a bold reinterpretation that had already been displayed at the Whitney Museum of American Art in Manhattan before this controversy erupted.
Sherald, renowned for her 2018 portrait of former First Lady Michelle Obama, found herself in the crosshairs of a broader cultural tug-of-war, ultimately deciding to cancel the exhibit slated for next September after learning of the gallery’s hesitations about featuring the painting.
Sherald didn’t mince words, stating, “Institutional fear shaped by political hostility toward trans lives played a role.”
Well, fear or not, it’s hard to ignore that reimagining a symbol as sacred as Lady Liberty might ruffle feathers in a country already wrestling with deep cultural divides.
She added, “This painting exists to hold space for someone whose humanity has been politicized.” While the sentiment is noble, one wonders if a taxpayer-funded venue is the right stage for such a charged statement when unity, not provocation, is the stated goal of our national institutions.
In a further comment, Sherald declared, “Silence is not an option.” Yet, pulling the exhibit entirely might be seen as a louder silence—ceding ground rather than sparking the dialogue she claims to champion.
On the other side, Vance’s push to scrub what he sees as ideological overreach from public spaces has the White House nodding in approval, with officials calling the cancellation a “principled and necessary step” toward fostering national unity.
Lindsey Halligan, a Trump special assistant, weighed in, noting the Statue of Liberty isn’t “an abstract canvas for political expression.” It’s a fair point—when a symbol means so much to so many, turning it into a billboard for any cause, however well-intentioned, risks alienating more than it inspires.
An administration official praised Vance’s broader efforts, stating he’s been “leading the effort to eliminate woke indoctrination” from beloved institutions.
While the term “indoctrination” might sting, the underlying concern—that public museums should reflect shared values rather than niche agendas—resonates with many who feel cultural spaces have drifted too far into activism.
The Smithsonian itself has stayed mum, offering no immediate comment on Vance’s involvement, even as its Board of Regents, which includes high-profile figures like Chief Justice John Roberts and several lawmakers, presumably grapples with the fallout behind closed doors.
What’s clear is that this episode isn’t just about one painting or one artist—it’s a flashpoint in a larger battle over who gets to define American identity through art, and whether publicly funded spaces should host works that some see as fracturing rather than uniting.