Trump Eyes Up Culture Sector: What Could Be Ahead?

Trump photo © Artlyst John Humphries

As speculation grows about Donald Trump’s return to the White House, questions loom over the future of arts funding in the United States. Federal support for cultural institutions such as museums, theatres, and community programs has historically been a contentious issue, and the Trump administration’s track record leaves little doubt that a second term could have significant repercussions for the arts sector.

To interpret Trump’s taste in art, a bronze bust of British wartime leader Winston Churchill and a portrait of the slave owner Andrew Jackson have returned to their places in the Oval Office. The sculpture, created by British-American artist Jacob Epstein (1880–1959), is once again displayed near the office’s fireplace, as confirmed by photographs published by The Wall Street Journal.

Cultural funding in the U.S. often hinges on the budgets of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). These two agencies and institutions, like the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center, are crucial in supporting creative projects nationwide. The NEA’s annual budget of $207 million pales compared to the National Science Foundation’s $9 billion, but its impact on small and medium-sized arts organisations is profound. Through a competitive grant process, the NEA funds projects ranging from after-school music programs in Florida to art therapy initiatives for veterans in Texas. Around 60% of NEA funds go directly to local organisations; the rest is distributed through state arts agencies.

David Lewis, head of the Mississippi State Arts Commission, highlighted the transformative effect of these grants in his state. “Last year, we gave over 360 grants ranging from $500 for individual artists to $25,000 for operational support for arts organisations,” he said. “These funds are vital for building projects like libraries and museums, ensuring access to art even in rural areas.”

During his first term, Trump repeatedly proposed eliminating the NEA and NEH alongside other cultural funding programs. Though Congress ultimately rejected these attempts, the proposals underscored the administration’s hostility toward public arts funding. The arts community responded with resistance, emphasising the sector’s economic impact. According to the advocacy group, Americans for the Arts, cultural activities generate significant revenue for local economies, with patrons of arts events spending an average of $38 on related activities such as dining out and transportation. The ripple effect of arts funding means small theatres and museums provide cultural enrichment and act as economic engines for their communities.

Beyond funding, concerns surround potential censorship and cultural restrictions under a second Trump administration. In 2020, Trump signed an executive order mandating “beautiful” architecture for federal buildings, which many interpreted as a push for conservative aesthetics. This ideological approach raises fears that future federal grants could come with stipulations favouring so-called patriotic or family-friendly content, echoing the “decency amendment” debates of the 1990s.

Maxwell Anderson, former director of several major U.S. museums, warned that such trends could stifle creativity. “A Trump administration would likely prioritise grant recipients who align with their ideological vision, limiting artistic freedom,” he said.

For many museum employees and cultural workers, the prospect of another Trump presidency carries emotional weight. One museum director, speaking anonymously, described the previous administration’s impact on staff morale. “Our team members, particularly women, bore the brunt of emotional caregiving during a politically charged environment. A second Trump term would likely exacerbate this strain,” they said.

Philanthropy expert Melissa Cowley Wolf pointed to broader challenges facing the arts sector, including shifting donor priorities. “The younger generation doesn’t view art as a driver of social or climate justice in the same way,” she explained. “Without renewed government support, private funding alone may not sustain many institutions.”

Trump’s travel ban during his first term disrupted international collaborations, barring artists from majority-Muslim countries from participating in U.S. exhibitions and performances. Advocacy groups like the Artist Freedom Initiative (AFI) are preparing for similar challenges. The AFI, which supports displaced and at-risk artists, plans to bolster peer-to-peer networks and organise public events showcasing affected artists.

The U.S. art market, which accounted for 42% of the $65 billion global art economy in 2023, could also face disruptions under Trump’s economic policies. Tariffs on Chinese art and antiquities proposed during his first term drew widespread criticism from dealers and collectors. Although cultural artefacts were eventually exempted, the threat of renewed tariffs looms.

Tax policy changes could further shake the market. The 2018 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated a key provision allowing collectors to defer capital gains taxes by reinvesting in art. Reintroducing such restrictions could depress the secondary market. However, some industry employees noted unexpected resilience during Trump’s first term.

Arts leaders are grappling with the uncertainty of what another Trump era might bring. From potential funding cuts to ideological battles, the stakes are high for a sector already facing post-pandemic challenges.

Bust of Donald J. Trump by John Humphries photo © Artlyst 2025

Read More

Visit

Tags