Written by Alan Brown
A determined US President now regards the host of federally-funded agencies charged with supporting arts and humanities as expendable pawns in his culture wars.
- The Kennedy Center? Co-opted.
- The Smithsonian? Under attack.
- Institute for Museum and Library Sciences (IMLS)? Dismantled by Executive Order. All staff placed on leave or terminated. Then, ordered reinstated by a judge. Notifications of reinstated grants went out May 21, but an appeal process leaves the future of the agency in limbo.
- National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)? Dismantled via a ‘change in direction.’ Legal challenges are pending.
- National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)? At least $27 million in grants canceled. Funding that flows through to state arts agencies has not (yet) been canceled.
My purpose in writing is not to recap all the carnage and the corresponding legal maneuvers, all of which is happening at a blinding pace, but to raise questions about what comes after.
While the legal challenges play out, many of the agency staff members have resigned, accepted buyout offers, or taken early retirement. Even if the agencies are restored by judicial ruling, it would take years to rebuild them.
In other words, the damage is largely done, and that is precisely the Trump administration’s strategy; shoot first, sort out legalities later. If they are restored, the agencies will nevertheless continue to be subject to the legislative appropriations process, which, by its very nature, is subject to the vagaries of the political process, and very well could result in the downsizing or elimination of the agencies after all. That’s how the system works, notes Michael Rushton, “…what we want an NEA to do is a political question, one that requires democratic deliberation.”
This is not a dress rehearsal.
Regardless of legality, we are witnessing the systematic dismantling of federal support for arts and culture, a long-envisioned policy objective of first Trump administration, and part of a larger attack on culture, science, and education that challenges the very precepts of what our federal government exists to do.
It may take years to settle the legal questions as to the extent of power the executive branch holds over how legislatively-authorized agencies conduct business. And it will be unclear for another four years, or perhaps much longer, if the political appetite for federal support for arts and culture will become more favorable, or if bi-partisan support is a thing of the past.
Cue the advocates.
I understand why the many nonprofits and agencies whose funding is in jeopardy or has been canceled are issuing coordinated statements about the importance of the NEA, NEH, and IMLS, and gearing up for an advocacy death-match.
The loss of grant funding and pass-through allocations will be devastating for many organizations. But what’s at stake here is more than a portfolio of canceled grants. As Philip Kennicott writes, “An entire system of vetting ideas, defining local priorities, and building communities is at stake.”
To see their funding restored, advocates will need to:
1) win the legal challenges to the power of federal judges to order nationwide injunctive relief that are in front of the Supreme Court at this moment;
2) win the legal challenges to the overreach of the executive branch in dismantling legislatively-authorized agencies;
3) win the legislative argument that these agencies should continue to be funded at historical levels;
4) convince Trump-appointed agency leaders that they should continue to fund what they’ve been funding, and not change directions; and/or,
5) wait for the agencies to become functional again.
I would love to be wrong, but it feels a bit quixotic to think all of this will fall in line.
As is so often the case, we are not thinking clearly, or fast enough, as a sector. This was also the case at the start of the pandemic, when our federal agencies were unable to manage a coordinated national response.
Leadership at the federal agencies is legislatively constrained, and leadership at other sector levels (i.e., academia, philanthropic, disciplinary) is so balkanized so as to preclude system-level design thinking.
In the absence of policy leadership, long-term perspective, and the courage to speak truth to power, we are defaulting, once again, to advocate for a highly sub-optimal federal system of support for arts and culture that does not meet the needs of American society in the 21st century and beyond.
Rather, we should see this moment as a once-in-a-generation opening of the Overton Window to fundamentally rethink what national structures we actually want and need to ensure that arts, culture and creativity are embedded in all aspects of Americans’ lives and communities.
Our future is under-imagined and has been for a long time.
In no way does this diminish the excellent work done by so many, over so many years, to lead these agencies. Indeed, a federal commitment to arts and culture is worth fighting for. Whatever results from this fight, however, will always be at risk. We must also understand that “arts and culture” has been weaponized as a political tool as never before in the conservative movement’s larger campaign against elitism. Thus, the playing field has dramatically changed.
The policy leadership we so badly need as a country will not arise from federal agencies helmed by political appointees, and whose annual appropriations hinge on votes from people who don’t really care much about cultural policy. There are successful federal agencies in other countries – Creative Australia comes to mind – but it seems unlikely that our Congress in its present state would ever adopt anything that looks like international best practice.
What is needed is a permanent endowment for arts, culture and creativity that is not subject to the constraints, compromises and shifting standards of elected representatives.
This might take the form of a large, private foundation with a national purview, a progressive mission, and governed by a board of distinguished creatives, educators, and community advocates. Call it the American Endowment for Arts, Culture, and Creativity. As a private foundation, its annual funding would stem from a restricted endowment… a “forever commitment” to the country.
This would turn philanthropy on its ear. Instead of furthering a small group of donors’ charitable interests, the foundation would be designed as a private, sector-driven vehicle for addressing shortcomings in federal policy. To wit, a new foundation might be chartered to:
- Coordinate and adopt policies and structures to advance the sector, intended as a resource for state and municipal governments, private funders and other stakeholders
- Support the national portfolios of regional, state, and local agencies and other intermediaries that provide critical support to sub-sectors and communities, if this cannot be done at the federal level
- Provide dedicated, self-determined support for the arts and culture of Indigenous nations and tribes, and traditional arts more broadly
- Ensure that Americans everywhere, in all corners of the country, have equitable access to richly creative lives, including children and adults
- Foster the support structures that allow artists, culture bearers, and culture workers of all kinds to thrive
- Bridge the entrenched disciplinary silos within the cultural sector, and build linkages with other sectors
- Coordinate a national research agenda for the sector, building a bridge between academia and practitioners, and provide catalytic support for R&D that fuels innovation in public programming
- Respond quickly to adverse events and unusual opportunities
Now, more than ever, is the time for critical discourse on what sector leadership at the national level should look like. In fact, a good number of people have given a good amount of thought to this question, including Adam Horowitz and Arlene Goldbard through their “US Department of Arts and Culture” project, and many other scholars.
While some federal funding may survive, the kind of leadership, policies, and funding structures we need as a country are unlikely to come about through a political process. Similarly, we cannot look to the constellation of private foundations to fill the leadership gap, as they are too busy dancing to the beat of their own drums.
The 2024 legislative appropriations for the NEA, NEH, and IMLS, together, were approximately $709 million. The endowment required to permanently support this level of funding would be in the range of $14 to $15 billion. That is approximately the size of the Ford Foundation’s endowment. Why not set a 10-year goal of raising $20 billion?
Establishing such an endowment would require the largesse of the current generation of very high net-worth individuals and families – the Carnegies and Mellons of our time. Wishful thinking, for sure. Given the current level of anxiety about the direction in which our country is headed, however, there very well might be enlightened investors with the capacity and conviction to permanently reshape the national landscape of arts, culture, and creativity.
Will anyone step up to this monumental challenge and equally colossal opportunity? Could this be a public/private endeavor? Should we lay the groundwork now for a dedicated tax-based funding source that is not tied to the annual appropriations process?
America’s 60-year experiment with federal support for arts and culture has derailed and still might fail completely. To imagine a brighter future, we must move past a survivalist mentality and look beyond the restoration of perpetually vulnerable and legislatively hobbled federal agencies.
Let us quickly go about the business of supplementing them with something more durable, more equitable, and more strategic – a future of our own design. Future generations of children deserve it. Our talented creative workforce needs it. And, our communities can’t truly thrive without it.
