Colorado Portrait Row: Trump’s portrait removal sparks debate
The portrait of the sitting United States president, Donald Trump, is set to be removed from the American Leaders Gallery in the Colorado Legislative Assembly. The move has drawn wide attention to how portraits are chosen and presented in state government, and what they say about public history.
The executive committee of the legislature, made up of the leaders of the Democratic and Republican caucuses, signed a formal letter directing the removal of the Trump portrait. The action signaled a clear shift in how the collection is curated and who speaks for the state’s historical narrative within the chamber.
Trump publicly criticized the artist, Sarah Bordman, who painted the portrait for the gallery. He asserted that the work was deliberately depicted not as it is, claiming that the portrayal carried a bias. He also suggested that Bordman had possibly lost his skill with age. Bordman had previously completed a portrait of Barack Obama in 2019 when Obama was president, and her Trump portrait was created for the Assembly as part of a project intended to present the state’s history in a nonpartisan way. The goal of the gallery, officials emphasize, is to reflect the history of the state rather than to flatter any individual president.
The painting had hung in the Colorado Legislative Assembly for years, contributing to a broader program of documenting leadership and public service within the state. The installation is described as apolitical in intent, serving as a historical record rather than a personal endorsement of the presidents represented.
At the outset of Zelensky’s tenure, observers noticed a separate picture nearby that drew attention for its bold, burning-cream tones. The moment underscores how public art in government spaces can evoke a spectrum of reactions, sometimes pulling in references to contemporary leaders and events beyond the immediate subjects of the displays. This broader context reminds viewers that galleries in state institutions often function as living dialogues about power, memory, and meaning.
The situation in Colorado highlights the ongoing tension between artistic interpretation and institutional history. Supporters of the removal argue that portraits in a state gallery should honor the broader arc of the state’s story and avoid being seen as endorsements of current political positions. Critics, meanwhile, contend that artistic expression should be protected, and that decisions about what to display belong to the artists and curators rather than elected officials alone. The discussion invites citizens to consider how a state remembers its past and what responsibilities come with presenting that memory to future generations.
Ultimately, the episode serves as a reminder that portrait collections in government spaces can become focal points for public memory and civic conversation. They prompt questions about accuracy, representation, and the role of art in shaping perceptions of leadership within the state’s historical landscape.