National Portrait Gallery head resigns two weeks after Trump called for her firing
The director of the National Portrait Gallery has resigned from her post, according to a memo sent to Smithsonian employees and obtained by CNN.
Kim Sajet's departure from the gallery comes just two weeks after President Donald Trump called for her employment to be terminated in a post on Truth Social, claiming she was 'highly partisan' and a supporter of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives that his administration has worked to end.
The secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Lonnie Bunch, wrote in the memo that Sajet is stepping down on Friday, writing that she had led the gallery 'with passion and creativity for 12 years.' The New York Times first reported Sajet's resignation.
'Throughout her tenure, she has reimagined and reshaped the impact and storytelling of portraiture,' Bunch said. Sajet was the first woman to serve in the role.
The National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC, is part of the Smithsonian Institution, which is the world's largest museum complex, including 21 museums and the National Zoo.
Earlier this week, the Smithsonian released a statement emphasizing its 'nonpartisan stature' and saying 'all personnel decisions' are made by its secretary.
The institution added that its Board of Regents 'is committed to ensuring that the Smithsonian is a beacon of scholarship free from political or partisan influence.'
Trump has sought to influence cultural and artistic institutions, including the Smithsonian. In March, he signed an executive order putting Vice President JD Vance in charge of stopping government spending on 'exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.' Vance serves on the institution's board of regents by virtue of his role as vice president.
'This was not an easy decision, but I believe it is the right one,' Sajet said in a statement included in Bunch's memo, which did not mention Trump.
'From the very beginning, my guiding principle has been to put the museum first. Today, I believe that stepping aside is the best way to serve the institution I hold so deeply in my heart,' she added.
Bunch wrote that the undersecretary for museums and culture, Kevin Gover, will take over as acting director of the gallery.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Protest safety 101: How to protect yourself when exercising your First Amendment rights
Donald Trump will be facing the largest protests of his second presidency this weekend — at least, the largest protests of his second presidency so far. Over 2,000 No Kings protests are scheduled for June 14 to voice opposition to the Trump Administration's illegal actions, which organizers say include "defying our courts, deporting Americans, disappearing people off the streets, attacking our civil rights, and slashing our services." The rallies will also overlap with Trump's 79th birthday celebration, which is set to feature a military parade. If Trump continues down his path, backlash will only continue to grow. Several protests against his administration have already taken place within the few months he's been in office, and several more are already scheduled through movements like No Kings and 50501. Here are some tips to help protect your safety and privacy if you plan on attending any upcoming demonstrations. It's best to leave your phone at home during protests so your location cannot be tracked. You can also leave it on while you're away so it shows your location as your residence. If you need to bring your phone with you to a protest, be sure to turn it off to stop your GPS from tracking you, and to have a password or pin. Also be sure to turn off your biometrics — face ID and fingerprint — so law enforcement can't force you to unlock your phone without a warrant. U.S. courts have previously ruled that using biometrics to unlock phones does not violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. However, police can't compel you to unlock your phone with a password or pin without a warrant. It's best to wear plain clothes without distinguishable symbols or patterns so that you cannot be as easily identified by law enforcement or in videos and pictures. You should also consider covering your tattoos for similar reasons. It is important that you do not wear makeup or contacts, as physicians stress that they can further irritate or damage your eyes if you come into contact with tear gas. Goggles or glasses are the best forms of eye protection. Accessories like masks and sunglasses can also help conceal your identity if you do not wish to be identified by police or online. You should also blur the faces of other protestors if you take pictures or videos, out of both respect for their privacy and caution for their safety. While Trump claimed recently on Truth Social that "MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests," no such law currently exists at a federal level. Some states have mask bans over a century old that were enacted in response to the Ku Klux Klan, but courts have issued varying rulings regarding their constitutionality. For example, California Code, Section 185 makes it illegal to wear a mask in order to avoid being identified while breaking the law, but this does not apply to actions protected under the First Amendment, such as protests. Before you leave for a protest, you should find an attorney you can call if you get arrested and write their phone number on your body in sharpie. That way, you'll have the number even if your possessions are taken, and the permanent marker will not come off as easily due to water or sweat. The National Lawyers Guild has protest support hotlines for chapters located in 35 states plus Washington D.C.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Biden robocall producer found not guilty of criminal charges
A political consultant was found not guilty of 11 felony charges Friday over AI-generated robocalls that mimicked President Joe Biden's voice discouraging Democrats from voting in the 2024 New Hampshire primary. The charges against Steve Kramer included voter suppression and impersonating a presidential candidate. AG vows to keep working on voter integrity after target found not guilty Attorney General John Formella said his office will keep working on efforts to protect voter integrity after a judge found Steven Kramer not guilty of state felonies for making a robocall that mimicked the voice of former President Joe Biden that urged Democrats not to vote in New Hampshire's 2024 primary. On Feb. 6, he identified two Texas companies and one business owner as having placed those robocalls. After the verdict in Belknap Superior Court, Attorney General John Formella noted that the Federal Communications Commission had already fined Kramer $6 million and two telecommunication companies another $1 million for violations of federal anti-robocall regulations. Kramer had been paid $150 by a political consultant working for Democratic presidential candidate Dean Phillips to produce the audio used to call roughly 25,000 likely voters two days before the Jan. 23, 2024 primary. Judge Elizabeth Leonard allowed Kramer's defense team to claim he didn't commit a crime because New Hampshire's primary was a 'straw poll' as it wasn't sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. 'That, ladies and gentlemen, was a brazen attack on your primary,' Kramer's lawyer Tom Reid told the jury, referring to the DNC's actions. 'And it wasn't done by Steve Kramer. 'He didn't see it as a real election, because it wasn't,' Reid said. Kramer's lawyers also argued the use of deepfake technology was protected speech rather than voter suppression. If convicted, Kramer would have faced decades in prison, with each felony carrying a prison term of up to seven years. He also faced 11 misdemeanor charges that each carried up to a year in jail. Kramer's lawyers argued he didn't impersonate a candidate because the message didn't include Biden's name and the former president wasn't on the primary ballot. Former Democratic Party chair testified at recent robocall trial Former Democratic Party Chairman Kathy Sullivan testified in the criminal trial of Steven Kramer who was found innocent of multiple charges regarding his manufacture of a robocall that mimicked the voice of former President Joe Biden to urge New Hampshire Democrats not to vote in the 2024 primary. All of those calls urged anyone with questions to call Sullivan's home telephone number. Biden honored the DNC calendar and refused to file to run or campaign in New Hampshire; he won the primary easily with a record write-in vote. All the calls left the telephone number of former Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan. During the trial, Sullivan testified that her belief was that Kramer's goal was to suppress the vote. Kramer was paid $259,946 by Phillips's campaign to help the long-shot presidential candidate get on the ballot in New York and Pennsylvania. The campaign told media outlets that that work included production and distribution of a robocall that used Phillips's voice. But the Phillips campaign denied any knowledge of the Biden robocall. Kramer testified during the trial that he had no regrets even though his actions led to AI regulations in multiple states including New Hampshire. He said he came up with the stunt as a warning for how AI can be misused. He chose to use it in New Hampshire believing it would have the most impact. In a statement Friday, Formella said the state 'will continue to work diligently to address the challenges posed by emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to protect the integrity of our elections.' klandrigan@
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As disinformation and hate thrive online, YouTube quietly changed how it moderates content
YouTube, the world's largest video platform, appears to have changed its moderation policies to allow more content that violates its own rules to remain online. The change happened quietly in December, according to The New York Times, which reviewed training documents for moderators indicating that a video could stay online if the offending material did not account for more than 50 per cent of the video's duration — that's double what it was prior to the new guidelines. YouTube, which sees 20 million videos uploaded a day, says it updates its guidance regularly and that it has a "long-standing practice of applying exceptions" when it suits the public interest or when something is presented in an educational, documentary, scientific or artistic context. "These exceptions apply to a small fraction of the videos on YouTube, but are vital for ensuring important content remains available," YouTube spokesperson Nicole Bell said in a statement to CBC News this week. But in a time when social media platforms are awash with misinformation and conspiracy theories, there are concerns that YouTube is only opening the door for more people to spread problematic or harmful content — and to make a profit doing so. YouTube isn't alone. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, dialled back its content moderation earlier this year, and Elon Musk sacked Twitter's moderators when he purchased the platform in 2022 and rebranded it as X. "We're seeing a race to the bottom now," Imran Ahmed, CEO for the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, told CBC News. "What we're going to see is a growth in the economy around hate and disinformation." WATCH | Experts warn Meta's moderation move will likely increase misinformation: YouTube's goal is "to protect free expression," Brooks said in her statement, explaining that easing its community guidelines "reflect the new types of content" on the platform. For example, she said, a long-form podcast containing one short clip of violence may no longer need to be removed. The Times reported Monday that examples presented to YouTube staff included a video in which someone used a derogatory term for transgender people during a discussion about hearings for U.S. President Donald Trump's cabinet appointees, and another that shared false information about COVID-19 vaccines but that did not outright tell people not to get vaccinated. A platform like YouTube does have to make some "genuinely very difficult decisions" when moderating content, says Matt Hatfield, executive director of the Canadian digital rights group OpenMedia. LISTEN | How Canada has come to play an outsized role in far-right misinformation: He believes platforms do take the issue seriously, but he says there's a balance between removing harmful or illegal content, such as child abuse material or clear incitements to violence, and allowing content to stay online, even if it's offensive to many or contains some false information. The problem, he says, is that social media platforms also "create environments that encourage some bad behaviour" among creators, who like to walk the line of what's acceptable. "The core model of these platforms is to keep you clicking, keep you watching, get you to try a video from someone you've never experienced before and then stick with that person." And that's what concerns Ahmed. He says these companies put profits over online safety and that they don't face consequences because there are no regulations forcing them to limit what can be posted on their platforms. He believes YouTube's relaxed policies will only encourage more people to exploit them. In a recent transparency report, YouTube said it had removed nearly 2.9 million channels containing more than 47 million videos for community guideline violations in the first quarter — that came after the reported policy change. The overwhelming majority of those, 81.8 per cent, were considered spam, but other reasons included violence, hateful or abusive material and child safety. LISTEN | Why you're being tormented by ads algorithms and AI slop: Hatfield says there is a public interest in having harmful content like that removed, but that doesn't mean all controversial or offensive content must go. However, he says YouTube does make mistakes in content moderation, explaining that it judges individual videos in a sort of "vacuum" without considering how each piece of content fits into a broader context. "Some content can't really be fairly interpreted in that way." Ahmed says companies should be held accountable for the content on their platforms through government regulation. He pointed to Canada's controversial but now-scuttled Online Harms Act, also known as Bill C-63, as an example. It proposed heavier sentences, new regulatory bodies and changes to a number of laws to tackle online abuse. The bill died when former prime minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation and prorogued Parliament back in January. Ahmed says he hopes the new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney will enact similar legislation. Hatfield says he liked parts of that act, but his group ultimately opposed it after it tacked on some other changes to the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act that he says were unrelated to the platforms. He says groups like OpenMedia would have liked to see a strategy addressing business models that encourage users to post and profit off of "lawful but awful" content. "We're not going to have a hate-free internet," he said. "We can have an internet that makes it less profitable to spread certain types of hate and misinformation." WATCH | How people can become more discerning news consumers:
