Kim Kardashian Firmly Denies Damaging Marilyn Monroe’s Iconic Gown After 2022 Met Gala

4 November 2025

Kim Kardashian in Marilyn Monroe's 1962 dress at the 2022 Met Gala. Credit : Gotham/Getty

In a sketch-style segment for Vanity Fair shot on a lie-detector setup, Kim Kardashian responded to the countless headlines and circulating images that accused her of damaging the original 1962 gown worn by Marilyn Monroe when she sang “Happy Birthday, Mr. President.” The gown, purchased by Ripley’s Believe It or Not! at auction for $4.8 million and subsequently loaned to Kardashian for the met Gala entrance, reportedly showed signs of wear and tear following her brief appearance. Kardashian addressed the rumours directly when asked by fellow guest Teyana Taylor if she had “whooped” the dress and caused harm. She answered plainly “no,” then added “I don’t know how it got to me, but it’s perfect now,” opting to keep the rest of the story close-mouthed and joking about the piece being insured for “$10 million.”

The dress in question is not just any garment. Monroe wore the ultra-fitted Jean Louis creation during her 1962 Madison Square Garden tribute performance to President John F. Kennedy. At the time, the fabric was so snug that Monroe had to be sewn into it. When Kardashian announced she would wear the piece to the May 2022 Gala, headlines exploded: she purportedly lost 16 pounds in three weeks, trained in a sauna suit, eliminated all sugar and carbs, and prepared for the appearance as though filming an acting role.

After the Gala, photos surfaced highlighting what appeared to be missing crystals, puckered seams and rips near the zipper of the gown a dress that before the event had been maintained under curatorial care and seldom handled. Collector Scott Fortner posted before-and-after photos and claimed the damage was “permanent.” However, Ripley’s swiftly contested these allegations in a June 2022 statement. Their representative Amanda Joiner stated that from the moment Kardashian stepped into the dress until its return the garment “was in the same condition it started in." They also reinforced that Kardashian wore the original only for a short stairway walk and immediately changed into a replica.

Kardashian’s new comments in the lie-detector segment reaffirm her long-held position: she deeply respected the dress’s legacy, she claims no harm resulted from her wearing it, and she expressed no interest in discussing the finer specifics beyond confirming it is now “perfect.” Notably the line about the insurance amount underscores the gravity and value of the piece both as a museum-quality artefact and as cultural symbol.

Despite Ripley’s defence and Kardashian’s denials, fashion historians and museum professionals have challenged the decision to allow the dress to be worn at all. The delicacy of 60-plus year-old silk-marquisette fabric and rhinestones is such that even brief handling or exposure can introduce structural stress. In an interview, a senior curator at the International Council of Museums described the move as “inevitable” damage risk and said historic garments are generally not meant to be worn but treated as static displays.

The Guardian

The controversy sparked broad debate about celebrity, fashion preservation, and cultural stewardship. On one side, geography of fame: Kardashian achieved an undeniably striking visual moment, aligning herself with Monroe’s historic aura in a move that fused pop culture, fashion lore and red-carpet spectacle. On the other side, preservationists argued that the moment prioritized Instagram-worthy glamor over artefact integrity and institutional responsibility.

In the wider narrative of Kardashian’s career the episode stands out both for its ambition and the backlash it generated. It marked a bold act of fashion appropriation of one of the most iconic gowns in American popular culture. Yet it also invited the question: at what cost? When objects of high cultural value are treated as performance pieces, the boundary between homage, risk and commodification becomes fuzzy.

For fashion fans, collectors and the general public alike the truth may lie somewhere between the extremes. The gown may bear minor marks of use after decades in circulation and display, and while Kardashian maintained she caused no damage, the visible signs and make-public critique underscored the fragility of heritage fashion. What remains is the image: Kardashian in Monroe’s dress, ascending the Met steps, and the subsequent ripple of scrutiny that followed.

As the controversy continues to be referenced in fashion commentary and media, Kardashian has kept her take concise less acknowledgement, more boundary-drawing. In an era of celebrity and spectacle, she chose to speak once and move on, leaving the debate alive and the dress still on exhibit.