Promoting the Arts, the Humanities, and Museum and Library Services

Background

President Biden's executive order emphasized strengthening America's creative and cultural identity by prioritizing the arts, humanities, and museum and library services. The initiative aimed to enhance equity, accessibility, and opportunities for all Americans, particularly in communities that have been historically underserved. This policy extended the operational scope of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) by directing them to implement programs advancing cultural vitality, economic development, and public health. This directive required these agencies to align their goals with broader governmental objectives, thus integrating cultural enrichment into national wellness and economic resilience strategies.

The order also established the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, comprising diverse private-sector individuals and state and local officials with a vested interest in supporting cultural sectors. This committee played an advisory role, tasked with creating recommendations to further cultural engagement and societal support for the arts and humanities. It built initiatives to promote philanthropic and private sector investment, enhancing the effectiveness of federal support and catalyzing participation among artists, scholars, and cultural leaders in significant national and cultural events. The integration extended to initiating federal cooperative projects that spanned multiple departments, advancing education, public health, and climate resilience through cultural means.

Operational adjustments under this order included dedicating funding and administrative support by the IMLS, allowing for improved facilities, staffing, and resources to support the Committee's functions. Considerations for joint initiatives by the NEA, NEH, and IMLS aimed to streamline activities in line with the order's objectives, which translated into both increased support for existing programs and the creation of new projects designed to integrate cultural development with national policy objectives. These alterations also signified a shift in focus towards using cultural platforms as tools for social and economic change, thus influencing legislation and funding strategies tailored to the arts and humanities.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation by President Trump of the 2022 cultural promotion order can be viewed in light of a broader strategic shift. Trump's administration, known for prioritizing economic growth through deregulation and limiting federal oversight, likely perceived the cultural emphasis as a deviation from core conservative priorities. These typically include reducing federal government reach and emphasizing economics rather than cultural initiatives. By revoking the order, the administration potentially sought to curb what it considered excessive federal engagement with sectors traditionally supported through local and private investments.

This move reflected a larger ideological pivot reminiscent of Trump's previous approaches, where preference is given to market-driven solutions over government-promoted projects. The administration may have believed that arts and culture should flourish independently of governmental direction, contending that public resources could be better allocated towards immediate economic concerns. This revocation signaled a desire to align federal policies more closely with core economic tenets, emphasizing industrial growth and private sector freedom over cultural enrichment mandates.

There's also the consideration that this revocation came amid a changing political landscape, where broader societal concerns such as immigration, border security, and fiscal responsibility took center stage. Trump’s political strategy often involved rallying core constituencies around issues of economic nationalism, and the arts as promoted by the executive order perhaps seemed peripheral to these immediate national concerns. Trump's administration might have deemed direct federal involvement in cultural affairs less essential compared to other pressing issues.

Furthermore, the decision could indicate a perception that federal cultural initiatives did not yield measurable economic benefits commensurate with their costs. Under this narrative, the administration might have prioritized trimming the federal budget by targeting programs seen as supplementary rather than critical. The revocation appears to fit a pattern of reducing federal intervention in sectors where market forces can purportedly lead without direct government sponsorship.

Winners

Corporations and private organizations involved in cultural and artistic endeavors might have seen potential benefits from the revocation. With less federal intervention, these entities could have found themselves operating in an environment that allowed greater autonomy and potentially opened up opportunities for tax incentives and private sector partnerships. Corporations may be incentivized to sponsor cultural initiatives as part of their corporate responsibility programs or branding strategies, offering a counterbalance to reduced federal involvement.

Additionally, industries focused on alternative education platforms might find themselves in a more favorable position following the revocation. With federal emphasis pulled back, private educational institutions, online learning platforms, and cultural non-profits may have new opportunities to fill the gap, offering specialized programs and events that attract new funding streams, including philanthropy and private grants. This shift potentially opens avenues for innovation in how cultural and educational services are delivered.

Certain sectors within entertainment and media could perceive the rollback as a boon, as they might experience less regulatory oversight regarding content at federal levels. By removing federal influence, creators within these sectors could potentially push forward bold, innovative projects without needing to align closely with federal policy initiatives. This could embolden industries to capitalize on new trends and audience demands unencumbered by federally-driven narrative arcs.

Losers

Communities that have historically relied on enhanced federal support to access cultural services are poised to face significant disadvantages. These communities, often underrepresented in access to arts and humanities resources, may experience a widening gap as federal outreach initiatives are scaled back. The revocation disproportionately impacts these areas, as state and local budgets may not have the capacity to compensate for the void left by withdrawing federal support.

Artists and cultural practitioners who benefited from National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities initiatives may find themselves in uncertain territory. These groups relied on federal grants and support for both developing and showcasing their work. The revocation signifies potential cuts in available funding, threatening livelihoods and creative projects aligned with public interest but which are less commercially viable.

Institutions central to cultural preservation, like libraries and museums that previously benefited from IMLS programs aimed at enhancing operations and accessibility, likely face operational challenges. Reduced federal support means scaling back programs, leading to less innovation and fewer educational opportunities for broader public engagement. These institutions may find themselves limited in expanding or even maintaining current service levels, impacting educational and cultural exposure at community levels.