Category: Wires

Heather Smith stood before the tattered portrait of Abraham Lincoln, holding a fine-tipped sable brush and a small plastic palette smeared with dabs of conservation paint.

Wearing special magnifying glasses, she peered at the edge of the unframed portrait where paint was missing and pieces of old canvas remained.

Lincoln, shown in the portrait resting his chin on his right hand, seemed to be watching.

“He’s been through a war of his own,” she said of the painting of the nation’s Civil War president. “It’s terrifying to think about.”

The 6-foot-2-inch portrait of a contemplative Lincoln sitting in a chair was painted in 1887. Time has weathered it and pocked it with flaws: Its original canvas was removed, probably with a scalpel. The surface of the painting was abraded, perhaps with an iron. And spots dotted the portrait where the paint was gone.

But the Baltimore art conservator, working for the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, which owns the painting, has now embarked on a months-long effort to restore the majestic portrait to its original look.

The effort is part of the portrait gallery’s project to assess 110 of its presidential portraits and repair those in need. The work has been funded, in part, by a grant from Bank of America.

Smith is the owner of Maryland Art Conservation, which is based in a former Baptist church in northern Baltimore.

She has already worked on the gallery’s 1785 portrait of George Washington by English artist Robert Edge Pine. And she is scheduled to work on gallery portraits of presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Benjamin Harrison, Woodrow Wilson, and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

She is also working on another Lincoln — known as the penny portrait, which resembles the image of Lincoln on the coin.

But the large portrait of Lincoln seated is, perhaps, the most dramatic and well-known of the group. He is shown wearing a dark suit, white shirt and bow tie. He is leaning forward, his left hand gripping the arm of the chair, as if listening.

The painting is too big to fit on an easel, Smith said, so it leans against a wall, flanked by two large windows. It was last on view at the portrait gallery in 2022.

It is one of four similar Lincoln portraits painted by the prolific American artist George Peter Alexander Healy, said Mindy Farmer, a portrait gallery historian.

“This has been an iconic work since it was created,” she said.

Another version, painted in 1869 and once owned by Lincoln’s son, Robert, is in the White House, according to the White House Historical Association.

The portraits are based on The Peacemakers, a painting Healy did in 1868 depicting Lincoln meeting with Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman, and Rear Adm. David D. Porter near the end of the Civil War, according to the association’s website.

The gallery’s 1887 portrait was commissioned by Lincoln’s longtime friend and political ally Elihu B. Washburne, who wanted it for his home, art historian Alba Campo Rosillo wrote in Smithsonian Magazine in 2021.

Healy painted the portrait in the winter of 1887 in his studio in Paris, where he was living, Rosillo wrote.

Washburne died in Chicago later that year, and the painting passed to his brother, William, who died in 1912.

It was purchased in 1934 by the A. W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust. It was given to the National Gallery of Art in 1942 and transferred to the planned portrait gallery in Washington in 1965, according to the gallery. The gallery opened in 1968 with the Lincoln portrait on display.

In the early 1940s, during conservation at a now-defunct gallery in New York, the painting underwent what Smith said was a radical treatment procedure.

“I’ve never encountered this before,” she said in an interview in her conservation lab. “They put [it] face down, removed the canvas from the back of the paint layers, which is extremely unusual.”

“They would have protected the front with something called a facing, which is paper glued to the front of the painting to keep everything intact, and then worked on the back,” she said.

The old canvas was probably scraped away little by little, except for a small ridge along the edges of the painting, she said. “I would not be surprised if that is how some of the painting’s numerous tears and holes were inflicted.”

The old canvas was replaced with a new backing, Smith said. The portrait also shows evidence of “abrasion,” where the paint has been worn down. What probably happened was that a prior conservator, assumably in the 1940s, used an iron to try to fix cracks in the paint surface, she said.

“When they ironed them, they didn’t put anything protective between the iron and the painting,” she said. “And I’m guessing they just wore down the paint.”

The painting’s last major conservation was in 1966, Smith said, and the portrait was in poor shape when she got it earlier this year.

She has since removed dirt and old varnish and reattached bits of paint that were loose.

She plans to soon begin comprehensive inpainting — adding paint to places where it’s missing. In her lab, she keeps books, paint brushes, picture frames, lighting equipment, jars of pigment, and a bed for her dog, Charity.

Across the room from the large Lincoln portrait, his penny portrait rests on a table. The work on it requires using bits of cotton on the end of a bamboo skewer to clean off dirt and soot.

The 1864 portrait, by the Boston artist William Willard, may have hung above someone’s fireplace, she said. The painting was given to the gallery in 1976 by Mr. and Mrs. David A. Morse, the gallery’s website says. It was last exhibited in 2009.

Smith, a native of Westminster, Md., has been an art conservator for more than 20 years, taking over the business in the small wood-shingled church when her employer retired.

She said she feels a sense of responsibility adding paint to damaged works of historic art.

“Early in my career … I would have conversations with the artist — ‘I’m sorry this happened to your painting,’” she said. “Over time, you treat enough paintings, you’re more looking at it as the materials, you kind of break it down in your head to the raw materials.”

She said that there is a sense of gravity to the work, a realization that the person restoring the art is part of its history.

“Obviously, you want to do no harm but make it look as good as possible,” she said. “Eventually, you won’t see any damages any more and will focus on what we’re here to see.”

Frustration with Washington is growing in the Persian Gulf region, where U.S. allies are increasingly concerned that President Donald Trump is unable to manage the diplomacy necessary to secure peace with Iran, Arab and Western officials say.

Trump in recent weeks has repeatedly issued threats against Iran, only to withdraw them, citing progress in talks. After months of conflict, and continuing missile and drone strikes by Iran and its proxies, three officials and a former U.S. diplomat told the Washington Post, the governments of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain are now united in their aggravation with the administration. Some have begun to debate the utility of continuing to host large U.S. military installations on their territory.

“Trump started this war,” one Gulf official said, “and we are paying the price.” Like others in this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive subject. Anger with the United States, the official said, was at its highest point since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran in February.

The Gulf states continue to rely on Washington as a close security partner and major arms supplier, and Qatar and Bahrain host large U.S. bases. But the frustration is leading some states to consider new arrangements. These dynamics are unlikely in the near term to significantly reorder the region, analysts say, but some countries have begun to explore their options.

A mutual defense agreement signed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan last week was “a signal to the U.S.,” a senior European official said.

The pact shows the three powerful Sunni Muslim states “are trying to diversify their security and defense partnerships,” said the official, who is in regular contact with Gulf leaders. “In their mind, the U.S. is not enough.”

A White House official said Trump “has extraordinary relationships with all of our Gulf partners.”

“The United States has been in regular contact with all of our regional allies since before Operation Epic Fury,” said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity under rules set by the White House. “Iran is more isolated than ever before as a result of its terrorist actions.”

Representatives of the Saudi, Emirati, Qatari, Kuwaiti, and Bahraini governments did not respond to requests for comment.

“There has been frustration from the get-go,” said Firas Maksad, director for the Middle East and North Africa practice at the Eurasia Group. U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf, he said, feel they were “unnecessarily entangled” in a war that Trump is now struggling to resolve.

Maksad, who has extensive contacts within Gulf leadership, said Trump’s Iran policy is often described in the region as “erratic” and “unpredictable.”

Anna Jacobs, a fellow with the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, said there has been “diminished trust” of the U.S. since the start of the war. U.S. allies think the country’s “conduct in the region is making them less safe, not more safe,” she said.

One Western diplomat in the region said these changes don’t amount to a significant shift in sentiment toward the United States. Even before the war with Iran, he said, U.S. forces in the region were not “enthusiastically” welcomed. “It was more something that was a necessary evil,” the diplomat said. “Now, the necessity of it is being put in question.”

Saudi Arabia has come under particular pressure in recent weeks. In addition to attacks from Iran and Iran-backed groups in Iraq, the kingdom has been targeted by Iranian-aligned Houthis in Yemen.

Houthi forces have repeatedly struck Saudi energy infrastructure and are attempting to shut down the Bab al-Mandab strait at the mouth of the Red Sea. Since Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in the early days of the war, Saudi Arabia has depended on its Red Sea ports to export its oil.

Attitudes toward the war among Gulf leaders have shifted. Oman has opposed the conflict from the outset, but Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain have at times backed it.

Emirati forces have conducted “numerous” strikes on Iranian territory in recent months, according to the Western diplomat, and Saudi forces have struck back at Iranian-backed groups attacking from Iraq.

“At the beginning of the war, they were — I don’t want to say supportive — but honestly, they were not totally against the war,” the senior European official said. The thinking in Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, he said, was that a quick, definitive victory could prove beneficial.

That began to shift in the lead-up to the first round of talks between Iran and the United States in April, the official said, when it became clear that not only would the Iranian regime not fall, but it would not reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

In the months since, Trump’s inconsistency has alarmed the Gulf, said Bader Al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University.

“Even before all this back and forth with Trump, there was no clear strategy,” said Al-Saif, a fellow of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. He cited the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran in June.

“The MOU was a joke,” he said. The agreement didn’t address the Gulf states’ top concerns, including Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal or Tehran’s support for proxy forces.

“Those terms were not terms of our liking,” Al-Saif said, “and that’s why it died out sooner than later.”

Trump, the White House official said, “has always been clear that his preference is diplomacy.

“Unfortunately, Iran chose the path of violence by killing American troops, committing international acts of terrorism, and lashing out at its neighbors in the region — and the Commander-in-Chief ensured that they reaped the consequences of those decisions.”

The Gulf states lack an immediately viable alternative to their decades-long security partnerships with the United States. As the conflict continues, the Gulf official said, their only choice is to double down on their alliances with Washington.

“Whatever we do,” he said, “we cannot say no to the United States.”

Douglas Silliman, a U.S. ambassador to Kuwait and Iraq under President Barack Obama and Trump, said he heard frustration with Washington on a recent visit to the region. But in recent weeks, he said, he is also hearing growing anger at Tehran for its continued attacks on infrastructure and refusal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Silliman, now the president of the Arab Gulf States Institute, described the feeling in the region as “kind of this odd contradiction of being mad at the United States for starting the war and being dependent upon the United States” for equipment, munitions, and intelligence.

If the conflict continues, the economic pressure on the Gulf will grow. Even during peacetime, the region quiets over the summer, tourism slows, and residents hole up indoors to escape 100-degree days.

But in autumn, temperatures fall and activity resumes. This year, the conferences, summits, festivals, and Formula One races that pack the calendar from October through December are all in limbo.

Saudi Arabia’s 10th annual Future Investment Initiative Institute in late October, the “Davos in the Desert,” could be an early test of whether senior officials and top CEOs are willing to visit the region, the Western diplomat said.

“They may tweak the theme” to acknowledge continued insecurity in the region, he said. “To postpone would send the wrong message.”

Iran continues to launch drones and missiles against Kuwait, but in the capital, much of life has returned to normal, Al-Saif said. “We have been through worse,” he said, referring to the 1990 invasion by Iraq that triggered the Persian Gulf War. “We handled the occupation. We can handle this.”

The security lockdown from the war’s earlier stage has been largely lifted. Businesses are open, traffic has returned to city streets, and Al-Saif has resumed teaching in person. But the conflict, he said, must not continue much longer.

“A quick end is obviously something we want,” he said. “The Gulf War was much more straightforward than today.”

The United States and Canada are moving closer to a deal to avert the imposition of punitive 50% tariffs on such Canadian products as hockey sticks, wine, and cement, according to industry executives and trade specialists following the talks.

Details remain fluid, and recent talks were contentious as both sides race to make a deal ahead of an early-Wednesday deadline. But the emerging accord could pair Canadian tariff concessions along with commitments on energy, defense, and critical minerals in return for the U.S. agreeing to shelve President Donald Trump’s new Section 338 tariffs and relax levies on steel and aluminum, according to those following the talks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential deliberations.

If a deal is reached, it is expected to provide momentum for the ongoing renegotiation of the North American trade deal reached in the president’s first term. An accord would also spare the administration one more legal battle over the president’s tariff powers.

“I’m optimistic that there’ll be a resolution in full or in part that will stave off the Section 338 tariffs. That’s the trajectory we’re on,” said Dan Ujczo, a veteran trade attorney in Columbus, Ohio. “Both sides want a deal.”

Trump’s Section 338 tariffs would apply to just 5% of the $382 billion worth of Canadian goods that the U.S. imported last year. But if they take effect as scheduled at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, they could scupper hopes for preserving a unified North American trade bloc, industry executives said.

The imposition of new tariffs, especially at a trade-chilling 50%, would exacerbate anti-U.S. sentiment in Canada, which is already raw after Trump’s repeated gibes about turning Canada into the 51st U.S. state. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said “all options are on the table” in terms of retaliation for any new U.S. actions.

“You’ve now put the Canadian government, with these 338s, in a position where if we don’t do a comprehensive deal, we may just end up having to politically retaliate and we will be years away from having trade peace,” said Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association in Toronto.

The once harmonious — and nearly tariff-free — relationship between the U.S. and its northern neighbor has witnessed a dizzying exchange of trade blows over the past year.

Last month, the president invoked an untested provision of a 1930 law known as “Section 338” to threaten the new levies, saying Canada’s retaliation for his 2025 tariffs amounted to unwarranted “discrimination” against U.S. merchandise. U.S. officials also wanted to spur Canada to engage with the president’s demand to amend the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement governing North American trade.

Administration officials including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Jamieson Greer, the president’s chief trade negotiator, took offense at Carney’s decision to retaliate last year, noting that only Canada and China responded to Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs.

The Canadian government says it had every right to hit back after Trump raised barriers against its exports. Administration officials say the Canadian retaliation unjustly penalized three American industries — alcohol, autos, and dairy.

Officials in most Canadian provinces including Ontario, the most populous, removed U.S. wines and spirits from government-run stores in March 2025 after Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian goods for what he said was a failure to prevent illicit fentanyl from entering the United States.

Canada also imposed a 25% tariff on some U.S. autos in response to a similar move by Trump, fracturing an industry that routinely ships half-finished vehicles among the three North American nations before completing production.

The president also complains that European cheeses enjoy preferential access to the Canadian market compared with similar American products shipped north.

The current talks are aimed at averting what could prove to be a costly breakdown in trade and paving the way for the start of formal U.S.-Canada talks about refreshing USMCA.

The U.S. began talking to Mexico months ago over possible changes to the North American trade deal that Trump negotiated during his first term. But no formal negotiations occurred with Ottawa. A deadline deal could change that.

“Depending on the outcome, it’s either a confidence-building exercise that sets the stage for more progress on USMCA, or it’s another friction in the relationship that could spiral quickly,” said Jake Colvin, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents companies such as Caterpillar, Coca-Cola, and Oracle.

Carney has said that he wants a full settlement, not just a limited deal. Negotiators are trying to strike a balance between what Trump wants and what Canada’s domestic politics will swallow, the industry executives said.

Along with tariffs, the two sides are discussing cooperation on energy and defense issues, including Canadian participation in Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile shield and purchases of F-35 fighter aircraft. The U.S. also wants to secure access to Canadian supplies of critical minerals, which could help reduce its dependence on China.

A key goal for Canada is getting the U.S. to reduce its 25% national security tariffs on steel and aluminum. These Section 232 measures, named for a provision in a 1962 trade law, could become a mix of tariffs and import quotas.

Canada could pocket a politically salient win in the form of lower tariffs on its lumber exports to the U.S. Under a routine annual Commerce Department review of antidumping duties, those long-standing taxes could drop by around 10 percentage points, executives said.

Though Canada and the United States have long been close friends and allies, the cross-border friction has become a staple of the Trump era. Earlier this month, Trump lambasted Canadian leaders as “nasty” in a Las Vegas speech. Carney responded by applying the adjective to the two nations’ trade relationship.

Permanently higher tariffs resulting from the collapse of USMCA would cost the U.S. economy $1 trillion over 10 years, according to an Oxford Economics study.

“There’s a lot at stake. This isn’t theoretical. This has real-life ramifications for Americans and Canadians,” said Beth Burke, the head of the Canadian American Business Council, which sponsored the study.