I don't think the NEA is trolling anyone. I think this is what happens to art under a fascist government regime. It becomes nationalist propaganda. Trump is also installing himself as the head of the Kennedy Center, dictating programming at one of our nation's premier cultural institutions. Controlling the art that gets distributed is playbook fascism.
This isn’t unique to fascism. Governments have long funded artists and writers who uphold their narrative. After he was crowned king of England, James I gave a formal patent to Shakespeare’s acting company and renamed it the King’s Men. In return, Shakespeare wrote a little play called Macbeth and made Banquo, an alleged (but likely mythological) ancestor of the Stewart dynasty, one of the heroes of the play.
Fair. Although using an example from a monarchy / dictatorship isn't much better 😂 but yes this happens under democracy too, holding status quo. It's just very blatant in this case.
That call about the 250th anniversary was in the original call (I can screenshot if anyone wants to see), but obviously it's emphasized more in the announcement, which seems strategic. It's going to be the same staff and same kind of reviewers, so I'm not panicking yet
Yes, but what about cutting funding to "projects that extend the reach of the arts to underserved groups/communities"? What a terrible loss for underrepresented minorities in the arts.
The arts are a strong and versatile tool for dismantling oppression. They can’t be the only tool but they keep alternatives alive and individuals and marginalized groups asserting our voices. The arts offer the keys to the locks. Meanwhile, many of us may have to make do with less to get where we need to go. Let’s support each other. And not support those who want to narrow our work to support some vague common denominator fantasy.
Two related concerns are, one, that funding for lit mags will become scarcer generally, and, two, that litmags will stay away from controversial material that offends politically or culturally conservative groups or funding sources. This may course be happening already, particularly with journals at state universities in conservative states.
As the editor of a magazine that uses government funding for a significant part of our budget, I anticipate that we may need to find other methods to fund the magazine. And I expect many magazines will need to do similar.
It's certainly contrary to ideas of free artistic expression and free political discourse. But, if they were alive today, Leni Riefenstahl and D.W. Griffith might argue that the chilling of criticism and dissent would allow art like theirs to be normalized.
We could never get a grant when evil and dangerous liberals ran the government. I don't expect to see one, should we apply, now that evil and dangerous conservatives are running the show.
Maybe it is better to be poor and unaffiliated? I dunno.
It must be extremely discouraging to those on the left who now have to summon up the courage to say something good about our country. Let’s all say a prayer for them. I’m sure it will take every ounce of creativity they have to meet this challenge.
There is a lot of good to celebrate about America. We had slavery and we abolished it. We had racial discrimination, lynching, oppression of women, and within my lifetime all of this improved greatly. And there is still a long, long way to go until America lives up to its wonderful ideals.
However, the powers that now be do not want anyone to talk about this any more. They define it as "anti-American" "hateful" or 'divisive" to point out discrepancies between American values and American realities.
My thought about this is one of common sense which is in short supply in our culture. Why would our government (or rather taxpayers) fund any projects that are focused on hating America? That’s literally the definition of biting the hand that feeds you. I am 100% in agreement that the billions of taxpayer dollars that have funded destructive anti-American projects should be permanently halted. People and organizations interested in furthering their anti-American causes can find their own private funding. Common sense. And yes, I proudly fly an American flag because I love my country, always have and always will, no matter who is in charge. If people think they’re subverting the order by adding American flags, more power to them. Bring on the patriotism! They might find that they like it.
To challenge something isn't to hate it. To live without being challenged is to live passively, without agency or self-reflection. That does nobody any good, and reflexively considering it to be "hate" probably means you need to be challenged more often.
Faith, education, athletics... These are all things made stronger from challenging people. So, too, is patriotism.
I agree 100%. But clearly the NEA thought there was something about their Challenge America program that would not meet the new standards or they wouldn’t have voluntarily shifted gears to Celebrate America.
Tracie, consider writers like Toni Morrison and Kurt Vonnegut, who confronted America's racism and military violence. Were they expressing hatred for their country, or demonstrating the deepest form of patriotism? Art has always held up a mirror to society – not to tear it down, but to help it reach its highest ideals. Perhaps true love of country isn't shown through unquestioning acceptance but through the courage to imagine what we could become.
One of the first advocates for the truth was Mark Twain, who vehemently decried what American troops were doing in the Philippines. They had promised their freedom fighter independence from Spain, but after the Spanish were deposed instead the US decided to stay, and consequently slaughtered all insurgency. We can't say this is the first genocide, since we already had an excellent track record with the trail of tears, and the Indian wars that followed the civil war. But here is an individual telling America of what their expansionist government was doing and they did not like it. To question what our government does is not hating America, it's loving for what stands for, a pursue of freedom, equality, and the ability to prosper.
We agree on all these points. Follow the dollars though, and you find we have been funding projects that serve radical agendas very much contrary to these worthy values.
Tracie, what "destructive anti-American projects" has the NEA funded? "Challenge America" wasn't about hating America. It was about "supporting projects that extend the reach of the arts to underserved groups/communities," including American communities that may have limited access to the arts relative to geography, ethnicity, economic status, and/or disability. Defunding this means taking money away from underserved groups in our country who deserve to be represented in our arts programming. It's entirely unsurprising that the Trump administration is pressuring art orgs like the NEA to cut funding to these groups, which might include artists from Black, indigenous, and immigrant backgrounds.
Hannah, the “destructive anti-American projects” I was referring to is the long list that you can easily find on the website of the new Department of Government Efficiency. My point was that as theft and mismanagement of our funds are being uncovered by the billions, it’s a wise decision to look at every penny and force those seeking grants to prove the value of their projects toward strengthening our culture, not tearing it down with DEI policies. I am supportive of cutting all funding for DEI and Affirmative Action as these policies are immoral, illegal practices which discriminate based on sex, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. No one should ever be hired or advanced in any opportunity based on the color of their skin or their biological sex. While I understand how difficult it is for organizations to have to re-qualify for funds under the new order (I wrote grant applications for years as a social worker and educator), it is clearly necessary in light of the monumental amount of wasted funds. Most of the projects that have lost funding or have been eliminated should have been privately funded in the first place since they did nothing to improve or add value to the American culture. I hope my comment makes sense.
You’re a good example of what the left means by “diversity.” You like people who are different from you as long as they agree with you on the “important” stuff.
Wow! So happy that you are opposed to righting the wrongs of slavery, jim crow, civil rights... DEI is the new N-word. I am going to stop reading this substack. I have to live with enough hate as a DEI Black person. You are on the wrong side of history, and it is a racist look you proudly bear! Continue to trumpet...
Tracie, your point about DEI makes sense in theory—in an ideal world where everyone starts with the same opportunities. But the reality is that historical inequities and biases still shape who gets ahead and who gets left behind, whose voices are amplified and whose are overlooked. In the context of arts, for example, in 2020, the Baltimore Museum of Art found that only 4% of its permanent collection was created by women artists. Their solution was to spend that year's purchasing budget on works by women artists. Would you consider that immoral discrimination? Or is it a step toward addressing a long-standing imbalance and building a collection that better reflects the full range of artistic talent?
Hana, I definitely understand why people see it that way. Over half of my family is in the marginalized category, including my adopted son who is a disabled Apache Indian. I worked with marginalized people in the social work field for years. I saw the negative impact of giving people opportunities based on things other than merit. As a woman writer, I want to be read and published on my merit not because someone thinks I need a leg-up. That devalues it for me. I appreciate being able to have this conversation with you and to hear each other’s hearts.
Thank you for sharing your perspective and personal experience, Tracie. I'd love for you to consider a different framing of the question: rather than seeing it as giving some people a leg up, what if we viewed it as removing artificial barriers that have nothing to do with merit? The goal isn't to devalue anyone's achievements but to ensure that talent and hard work, regardless of background, are what truly determine success.
I completely understand your concern about your work being valued for the right reasons. No writer wants their success attributed to anything other than the quality of their work! At the same time, I wouldn't feel confident that I was being judged purely on merit if equally talented voices were being excluded due to barriers unrelated to their work.
I appreciate this conversation—thanks for engaging with me on it.
If you’re ever in central Virginia, I’d love to grab a cup of coffee with you.😊 Thanks for articulating your viewpoint so well and being a good listener. I’m convinced the world would be a better place if people would listen more.
Hi Trish. I always welcome debate and discussion but this comment is bordering on an ad hominem attack, which I do not allow in this comments section. Please rephrase "sounds like a bigot's fantasy" or I will have to remove the comment. I thank you in advance for keeping discussion of difficult topics respectful and focused on the subject at hand, not the speaker.
I don't think it was personal, Becky - I was responding to what was written; I know nothing else about the writer. I've deleted the comment out of respect for you.
I think what Trish means is that there could be selective funding with nationalist and culturally (and maybe racially) conservative views being promoted and projects that reflect diversity or recognize wrongs and mistakes like slavery, Jim Crow, the Chinese Exclusion Act, foreign military adventures, etc. not being funded. I'd also say one's views on this are more a matter of what you think America and its values should be than "hating America".
I don't think the NEA is trolling anyone. I think this is what happens to art under a fascist government regime. It becomes nationalist propaganda. Trump is also installing himself as the head of the Kennedy Center, dictating programming at one of our nation's premier cultural institutions. Controlling the art that gets distributed is playbook fascism.
This isn’t unique to fascism. Governments have long funded artists and writers who uphold their narrative. After he was crowned king of England, James I gave a formal patent to Shakespeare’s acting company and renamed it the King’s Men. In return, Shakespeare wrote a little play called Macbeth and made Banquo, an alleged (but likely mythological) ancestor of the Stewart dynasty, one of the heroes of the play.
Fair. Although using an example from a monarchy / dictatorship isn't much better 😂 but yes this happens under democracy too, holding status quo. It's just very blatant in this case.
Regarding the individual grants, I wouldn’t be surprised if the NEA is pressured to choose jurors who will select work that “aligns”.
That call about the 250th anniversary was in the original call (I can screenshot if anyone wants to see), but obviously it's emphasized more in the announcement, which seems strategic. It's going to be the same staff and same kind of reviewers, so I'm not panicking yet
Yes, but what about cutting funding to "projects that extend the reach of the arts to underserved groups/communities"? What a terrible loss for underrepresented minorities in the arts.
Oh, that's interesting. Thanks for this context.
The arts are a strong and versatile tool for dismantling oppression. They can’t be the only tool but they keep alternatives alive and individuals and marginalized groups asserting our voices. The arts offer the keys to the locks. Meanwhile, many of us may have to make do with less to get where we need to go. Let’s support each other. And not support those who want to narrow our work to support some vague common denominator fantasy.
Thank you. Some of the comments here are distressing.
Two related concerns are, one, that funding for lit mags will become scarcer generally, and, two, that litmags will stay away from controversial material that offends politically or culturally conservative groups or funding sources. This may course be happening already, particularly with journals at state universities in conservative states.
As the editor of a magazine that uses government funding for a significant part of our budget, I anticipate that we may need to find other methods to fund the magazine. And I expect many magazines will need to do similar.
Yes this move is a pipeline to censorship, including self-censorship. Which is antithetical to art-making.
It's certainly contrary to ideas of free artistic expression and free political discourse. But, if they were alive today, Leni Riefenstahl and D.W. Griffith might argue that the chilling of criticism and dissent would allow art like theirs to be normalized.
I'm starting to see more groups speaking out against this. Here's a statement from Tupelo Press. They say compliance with the new regulations would be immoral. https://www.instagram.com/p/DF2m75XoE5v/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
I have Shostakovich’s eighth string Quartet playing through my head on repeat.
Eighth string? That’s pretty deep in the bench!
We could never get a grant when evil and dangerous liberals ran the government. I don't expect to see one, should we apply, now that evil and dangerous conservatives are running the show.
Maybe it is better to be poor and unaffiliated? I dunno.
It must be extremely discouraging to those on the left who now have to summon up the courage to say something good about our country. Let’s all say a prayer for them. I’m sure it will take every ounce of creativity they have to meet this challenge.
There is a lot of good to celebrate about America. We had slavery and we abolished it. We had racial discrimination, lynching, oppression of women, and within my lifetime all of this improved greatly. And there is still a long, long way to go until America lives up to its wonderful ideals.
However, the powers that now be do not want anyone to talk about this any more. They define it as "anti-American" "hateful" or 'divisive" to point out discrepancies between American values and American realities.
Priceless. All the “good” things you mentioned were triumphs over bad things, which shows where your mind goes first. I rest my case.
Triumphs are great.
My thought about this is one of common sense which is in short supply in our culture. Why would our government (or rather taxpayers) fund any projects that are focused on hating America? That’s literally the definition of biting the hand that feeds you. I am 100% in agreement that the billions of taxpayer dollars that have funded destructive anti-American projects should be permanently halted. People and organizations interested in furthering their anti-American causes can find their own private funding. Common sense. And yes, I proudly fly an American flag because I love my country, always have and always will, no matter who is in charge. If people think they’re subverting the order by adding American flags, more power to them. Bring on the patriotism! They might find that they like it.
To challenge something isn't to hate it. To live without being challenged is to live passively, without agency or self-reflection. That does nobody any good, and reflexively considering it to be "hate" probably means you need to be challenged more often.
Faith, education, athletics... These are all things made stronger from challenging people. So, too, is patriotism.
I agree 100%. But clearly the NEA thought there was something about their Challenge America program that would not meet the new standards or they wouldn’t have voluntarily shifted gears to Celebrate America.
Tracie, consider writers like Toni Morrison and Kurt Vonnegut, who confronted America's racism and military violence. Were they expressing hatred for their country, or demonstrating the deepest form of patriotism? Art has always held up a mirror to society – not to tear it down, but to help it reach its highest ideals. Perhaps true love of country isn't shown through unquestioning acceptance but through the courage to imagine what we could become.
One of the first advocates for the truth was Mark Twain, who vehemently decried what American troops were doing in the Philippines. They had promised their freedom fighter independence from Spain, but after the Spanish were deposed instead the US decided to stay, and consequently slaughtered all insurgency. We can't say this is the first genocide, since we already had an excellent track record with the trail of tears, and the Indian wars that followed the civil war. But here is an individual telling America of what their expansionist government was doing and they did not like it. To question what our government does is not hating America, it's loving for what stands for, a pursue of freedom, equality, and the ability to prosper.
We agree on all these points. Follow the dollars though, and you find we have been funding projects that serve radical agendas very much contrary to these worthy values.
Tracie, what "destructive anti-American projects" has the NEA funded? "Challenge America" wasn't about hating America. It was about "supporting projects that extend the reach of the arts to underserved groups/communities," including American communities that may have limited access to the arts relative to geography, ethnicity, economic status, and/or disability. Defunding this means taking money away from underserved groups in our country who deserve to be represented in our arts programming. It's entirely unsurprising that the Trump administration is pressuring art orgs like the NEA to cut funding to these groups, which might include artists from Black, indigenous, and immigrant backgrounds.
Hannah, the “destructive anti-American projects” I was referring to is the long list that you can easily find on the website of the new Department of Government Efficiency. My point was that as theft and mismanagement of our funds are being uncovered by the billions, it’s a wise decision to look at every penny and force those seeking grants to prove the value of their projects toward strengthening our culture, not tearing it down with DEI policies. I am supportive of cutting all funding for DEI and Affirmative Action as these policies are immoral, illegal practices which discriminate based on sex, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. No one should ever be hired or advanced in any opportunity based on the color of their skin or their biological sex. While I understand how difficult it is for organizations to have to re-qualify for funds under the new order (I wrote grant applications for years as a social worker and educator), it is clearly necessary in light of the monumental amount of wasted funds. Most of the projects that have lost funding or have been eliminated should have been privately funded in the first place since they did nothing to improve or add value to the American culture. I hope my comment makes sense.
If you trust anything on the DOGE website then you are not someone I would like to continue to have intellectual discourse with.
You’re a good example of what the left means by “diversity.” You like people who are different from you as long as they agree with you on the “important” stuff.
I can definitely understand not trusting your own government. Been there!
Wow! So happy that you are opposed to righting the wrongs of slavery, jim crow, civil rights... DEI is the new N-word. I am going to stop reading this substack. I have to live with enough hate as a DEI Black person. You are on the wrong side of history, and it is a racist look you proudly bear! Continue to trumpet...
Tracie, your point about DEI makes sense in theory—in an ideal world where everyone starts with the same opportunities. But the reality is that historical inequities and biases still shape who gets ahead and who gets left behind, whose voices are amplified and whose are overlooked. In the context of arts, for example, in 2020, the Baltimore Museum of Art found that only 4% of its permanent collection was created by women artists. Their solution was to spend that year's purchasing budget on works by women artists. Would you consider that immoral discrimination? Or is it a step toward addressing a long-standing imbalance and building a collection that better reflects the full range of artistic talent?
Hana, I definitely understand why people see it that way. Over half of my family is in the marginalized category, including my adopted son who is a disabled Apache Indian. I worked with marginalized people in the social work field for years. I saw the negative impact of giving people opportunities based on things other than merit. As a woman writer, I want to be read and published on my merit not because someone thinks I need a leg-up. That devalues it for me. I appreciate being able to have this conversation with you and to hear each other’s hearts.
Thank you for sharing your perspective and personal experience, Tracie. I'd love for you to consider a different framing of the question: rather than seeing it as giving some people a leg up, what if we viewed it as removing artificial barriers that have nothing to do with merit? The goal isn't to devalue anyone's achievements but to ensure that talent and hard work, regardless of background, are what truly determine success.
I completely understand your concern about your work being valued for the right reasons. No writer wants their success attributed to anything other than the quality of their work! At the same time, I wouldn't feel confident that I was being judged purely on merit if equally talented voices were being excluded due to barriers unrelated to their work.
I appreciate this conversation—thanks for engaging with me on it.
If you’re ever in central Virginia, I’d love to grab a cup of coffee with you.😊 Thanks for articulating your viewpoint so well and being a good listener. I’m convinced the world would be a better place if people would listen more.
Hi Trish. I always welcome debate and discussion but this comment is bordering on an ad hominem attack, which I do not allow in this comments section. Please rephrase "sounds like a bigot's fantasy" or I will have to remove the comment. I thank you in advance for keeping discussion of difficult topics respectful and focused on the subject at hand, not the speaker.
I don't think it was personal, Becky - I was responding to what was written; I know nothing else about the writer. I've deleted the comment out of respect for you.
I appreciate that, Trish. Thanks for your response and action.
I think what Trish means is that there could be selective funding with nationalist and culturally (and maybe racially) conservative views being promoted and projects that reflect diversity or recognize wrongs and mistakes like slavery, Jim Crow, the Chinese Exclusion Act, foreign military adventures, etc. not being funded. I'd also say one's views on this are more a matter of what you think America and its values should be than "hating America".
You can remove mine, because this is rooted in bigotry. I'm out!
Here's one take, along with some context, from LitHub: https://lithub.com/gird-your-loins-were-about-to-get-a-lot-of-really-bad-state-sponsored-art/.