Publicly funded art programs are on the Trump administration’s chopping block, particularly the National Endowment for the Arts. And organizations like The Creative Coalition and the many arts programs that rely on NEA funding are hoping that some private politicking, in addition to public pressure, can save the arts programs the Trump administration seems intent on destroying.
Much like the many other programs Donald Trump and Republicans are trying to kill, the NEA is a congressionally established organization that funds art-related projects and programming nationwide, from summer concerts to school art programs. Trump’s budget proposal calls for eliminating the NEA entirely, and hundreds of grants have already reportedly been pulled from projects across the country.
As conservatives in Congress determine which federal programs to slash as they look to offset massive tax cuts largely designed to favor the wealthy, several celebrities with The Creative Coalition, an entertainment industry-focused advocacy group, trekked to Washington, D.C., to attempt to convince lawmakers not to slash the funds. In late April, the organization hosted what it called a “Right to Bear Arts” gala in the capital, attended by actors like “The Sex Lives of College Girls” star Pauline Chalamet, comedian Tig Notaro, and “White Lotus” star Jason Isaacs.
Since then, the group has been largely focused on meeting with Republicans, given the party’s present control in Congress. The NEA is exactly the kind of organization that Congress should support, because it’s “the perfect example of a public-private program,” The Creative Coalition CEO Robin Bronk told me.
“Investing in our communities through the arts makes for better and more productive citizens,” she said.
Bronk points out that cuts to the NEA are also hurting programs’ ability to raise private funds, since the NEA acts as a sort of “Good Housekeeping seal of approval” that lets philanthropists know which programs they can reliably invest in.
That idea that private funding can easily step in to support the arts when federal funds are cut is one of the many misconceptions that Chalamet told me she works to dispel when she speaks with members of Congress and their staffs. She said:
A lot of staff of Republican Congress — men and women that we spoke to — looked at this very economically. And rightfully so. They don’t want frivolous spending, sure. So they say, ‘Why can’t it be privately funded?’ But the thing is that there are parts of rural America where people won’t know who to turn to for privately funded choirs or jazz festivals. We need institutions to exist so that they can get a certain seal of approval from some semblance of authority that validates their project.
Other myths the group is trying to dispel are the notion that the NEA is bankrolling coastal propaganda or that it’s part of some liberal indoctrination conspiracy. “There’s rhetoric around the arts being, like, part of some kind of liberal elite agenda and, you know, access to it is much higher in cities that tend to vote blue,” Chalamet said, “But the thing is, that’s just rhetoric. That’s basically looking at works of art that exist in cities and saying, ‘This is what’s going on across the country.’ What the NEA does is fund American projects.”
Funding arts nationwide, Chalamet said, allows “many different types of people with different opinions to be able to express their opinion.” Both Bronk and Chalamet said the conservatives they spoke with frequently bring up their own experiences with the public arts growing up.
So it doesn’t sound like the issue here is that Republicans are wholly unfamiliar with what the NEA does. The question seems more about whether Republican lawmakers see American art — arguably our nation’s greatest export — as worthy of federal investment.