Slashing the Soul: Trump’s Proposal Targets America’s Arts and Identity
Picture a small-town library’s story hour, a community theater nurturing new voices, or a veteran writing group finding healing through narrative. Now imagine them gone—whole swathes of local creativity and support erased at the stroke of a presidential pen. That’s not dramatic license; it’s the direct risk from the latest 2026 budget proposal from the Trump administration, which calls for eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)—cornerstones of American public culture for generations.
These agencies represent a lifeline for communities both rural and urban, disproportionately benefitting places corporate philanthropy simply doesn’t reach. Their grants underpin programs that help children learn to read, veterans heal from trauma, and local economies thrive through the economic multiplier of the arts. In proposing their outright abolition, the Trump administration is reviving a campaign from its first term—one Congress firmly rebuffed. Now, the stakes are higher than ever, as recent actions by the Department of Government Efficiency have already slashed staff and budgets, sending shockwaves through America’s cultural infrastructure (“Department of Government Efficiency,” May 2025).
Economic Fallout: Austerity That Hurts Workers and Growth
It’s easy to caricature arts funding as a luxury, but the facts paint a different story. According to Americans for the Arts, the creative sector generated $151.7 billion in economic activity in 2022 and supported 2.6 million jobs. These aren’t just painters and poets; they include carpenters building sets, tech crews in small theaters, librarians, museum curators, and teachers fueling lifelong learning (“Americans for the Arts,” 2023). The NEA and NEH have long served as force multipliers, giving leverage to $1 in public funding with many times that from local giving and private philanthropy.
When the Trump administration frames these cuts as necessary belt-tightening, it both misreprents the numbers and ignores the real-world harm to working families. Union leaders—from Actors’ Equity Association to the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees—are sounding the alarm: jobs will vanish, especially in communities that lack wealthy donors or large institutions. As Actors’ Equity Association noted, live arts generate another $38.46 in economic activity for every dollar spent on a show—a remarkable return for less than a dollar per American taxpayer (“Actors’ Equity Association,” 2025).
A closer look reveals these proposed cuts as part of a broader ideological crusade. Beyond the NEA and NEH, the administration’s proposal takes aim at the 400 Years of African American History Commission, AmeriCorps, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—agencies that undergird civic participation, diversity, and social mobility. These are programs that, by design, reach those historically left behind.
“You can’t claim to stand for American greatness while gutting the institutions that empower communities, foster dialogue, and preserve the voices that tell our nation’s story.”
Supporters of the cuts argue that these functions could be funded by private donors or state governments, but the historical record shows otherwise. In periods of retrenchment—such as the 1980s under Reagan—private giving never filled the vacuum left by federal withdrawal. If anything, wealthy urban centers fared best, while redlined, rural, and marginalized communities lost cultural infrastructure and opportunity for a generation.
Resistance Builds: Unions, Advocates, and Legal Challenges Fight Back
Arts and humanities workers have begun to mount a fierce defense. The Mellon Foundation pledged $15 million in emergency funds to help state humanities councils stave off immediate closure, demonstrating the philanthropic sector’s concern (“Mellon Foundation Emergency Funding,” 2025). Yet even such extraordinary intervention is a stopgap against a tidal wave. Recently, three humanities councils and affected individuals filed suit against the administration, arguing that the abrupt layoffs and cancellations violate federal law—a sign of growing legal and political pushback (“Pending Lawsuit over NEH Cuts,” 2025).
What’s especially telling is the breadth of bipartisanship marshaled to save the NEA and NEH in years past. During Trump’s first term, both Republican and Democratic senators found common cause in defending the agencies—a pattern now echoed by Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, who decried the proposals as both reckless and untimely. This isn’t surprising given the broad public support: as Pew Research has found, a majority of Americans, regardless of party, believe federal investment in culture and education is crucial for long-term prosperity (“Pew Research: Arts Opinion,” 2023).
Why is this debate so persistent? At heart, it’s about whose stories get told and whose futures are invested in. Slashing the budget for the arts and humanities is not just an accounting exercise—it’s a direct assault on diversity, voice, and the hope of progress. Progressive values teach us that a nation’s greatness lies not only in its material wealth but in its ability to nurture imagination, empathy, and opportunity for all. To hemorrhage these institutions is to mortgage the national soul to the ideology of austerity and short-term gain.
History will judge how we stood up for these values. If you care about your local theater, your library, or your children’s curiosity about the world, this is a fight none of us can afford to ignore. The NEA and NEH may not make headlines every day, but they shape the stories—and the lives—that ultimately define us.
