NEA arts neh nat'l endowment human
an 925
In another judicial rebuke to President Donald Trump’s effort to harm funding for the nation’s arts, a federal judge on Friday evening ruled against the president’s insider attack on the National Endowment for the Arts by blocking grant applications from artists or organizations that don’t strictly adhere to the president’s right-wing ideology on gender.
Ruling in favor of several arts organizations that sued the NEA earlier this year over the policy change, US District Court Judge William E. Smith, appointed by President George W. Bush and serving in Rhode Island, said the grant restrictions ran afoul of federal statute and the US Constitution.
As theNew York Times reports:
The lawsuit was filed in March by several arts organizations, including Rhode Island Latino Arts, which promotes art made by Latinos, and National Queer Theater, a New York company. It challenged new agency regulations, initially introduced in February, stating that federal funds “shall not be used to promote gender ideology,” which Mr. Trump’s order said includes “the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.”In the lawsuit, the groups, which said they had all produced or supported work about transgender and nonbinary people, argued that they would effectively be barred from seeking grants “on artistic merit and excellence grounds,” which violated their rights under the First Amendment.
In his ruling, Williams called the policy that came out of Trump’s edict both “arbitrary and capricious,” one that violated not only free speech protections but also the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the EPA grant-making process.
Smith held that the NEA’s grant application review process “violates the First Amendment because it is a viewpoint-based restriction on private speech.”
Specifically, the judge said the government’s policy “offered zero explanation” to applicants “of what it means for a project to ‘promote gender ideology,’ let alone how that concept relates to artistic merit, artistic excellence, general standards of decency, or respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.”
“The NEA intends to disfavor applications that promote gender ideology precisely because they promote gender ideology,” Smith stated in his judicial order. “The Final Notice therefore promises to penalize artists based on their speech.”
The lawsuit was brought four groups: Rhode Island Latino Arts (RILA), National Queer Theater (NQT), The Theater Offensive (TTO), and Theatre Communications Group (TCG).
Marta V. Martínez, RILA’s executive director, said the court’s ruling “affirms what we have always believed: the freedom to create, to express one’s truth, and to tell our stories is a right protected by the First Amendment.”
“As an organization deeply rooted in storytelling, theater, and the preservation of cultural history,” Martínez added, “we are relieved and grateful that the courts have recognized the importance of protecting artistic expression for all people, including those in LGBTQ+ communities.”
The ACLU, which had helped bring the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, celebrated the ruling as “an important victory” for artists, free speech, and the rule of law.
“At a time when the government is using its full weight to try to impose ideological conformity, this order is an important reminder that the First Amendment protects us from exactly that,” Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. “Even when the government funds private speech, it does not get to support only those messages that parrot its views.”
---}:
---}:
the primary aim of the political right, said the president of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, in early 2024, should be “institutionalizing Trumpism.” He and his organization meant this especially for the writing, teaching, and dissemination of American history.
On March 27, President Donald Trump, echoing the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, issued an executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” The White House now believes it should pronounce on the nature of history and the purpose and substance of the nation’s treasures at the Smithsonian Institution. The order is nothing less than a declaration of political war on the historians’ profession, our training and integrity, as well as on the freedom and curiosity of anyone who reads or visits museums. In other words, Trump’s team has declared war on free minds and free education in order to erase more than a half-century of scholarship and replace it with official triumphal narratives rooted in a brand of pickled patriotism designed to force the past to serve the present.
We have opened the gates of historical knowledge to myriad new subjects and methods that have educated a largely curious and willing world. Now we have to mobilize to defend our profession not only with research and teaching but in the realm of politics and public persuasion.
Public and political resistance to historians is nothing new; book bans, fights over textbooks and curricula, and battles over what a proper national narrative should be have long besieged our craft. Today, our foes like to wear red hats and rely on moral platitudes rather than research, ad hominem accusations rather than analysis, executive orders drafted at a think tank, funding restrictions, and a hatred of what they deem “liberalism” as their weapons in a war on traditional history. Trained historians and teachers are now the “traditionalists,” defenders of an honored practice, believing in evidence and research, against a barbaric effort to dissolve the institutional and moral foundations of those two important values. We have steadily opened the gates of historical knowledge to myriad new subjects and methods that have educated a largely curious and willing world. Now we have to mobilize to defend our profession not only with research and teaching but in the realm of politics and public persuasion. And we cannot surrender!
:{:{In Richard J. Evans’s trilogy on the Third Reich, he shows indelibly how the Nazis achieved power because of eight key factors:}:
One, the depth of economic depression and the ways it radicalized the electorate;
two, widespread hatred for parliamentary democracy that had taken root for at least a decade all over Europe;
three, the destruction of dissent and academic freedom in universities;
four, the Nazis’ ritualistic “dynamism,” charisma, and propaganda machinery;
five, the creation of a cloak of legality around so many of their tactics, stage by stage of the descent into fear, terror, and autocracy;
six, the public manipulating and recrafting of history and forging Nazi mythology to fit their present purposes;
seven, they knew whom and what they viscerally hated—communists and Jews—and made them the objects of insatiable grievance;
eight, and finally, vicious street violence, with brownshirts in cities and student thugs on college campuses, mass arrests, detainment camps, and the Gestapo in nearly every town.
All of these methods, mixed with the hideous dream of an Aryan racial utopia and a nationalism rooted in deep resentment of the Versailles Treaty at the end of World War I, provided the Nazis the tools of tyranny.}:
In 2025, our own autocratic governing party has already employed many, though not all, of these techniques. Thanks to a free press and many courts sustaining the rule of law, Trumpism has not yet mastered every authoritarian method. But it has launched a startlingly rapid and effective beginning to an inchoate American brand of fascism.
These assaults on history have moved at a startling pace, if a bit under the radar of public attention. The Trump White House, with the assistance of Project 2025, has attacked the institutions that historians most cherish. They include the National Archives, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution and its 21 museums, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Fulbright fellowship program, and the National Park Service. This is only a partial list and should also include universities themselves and public schools, which many Republicans are determined to erode or destroy. }:}:
All of these measures were in the name of eliminating historical content deemed by the White House to be “woke,” or in the service of “DEI,” both vacuous labels that have come to mean almost anything about race, gender, LGBTQ life, and history. The White House/Heritage Foundation axis has seized the word “patriotic,” as its cloak of legitimacy, and all who care about a pluralistic, meaningful American history must seize it right back. Their initial threats to the Smithsonian, indeed, according to Mike Gonzalez, one of their attack artists, is only the beginning of a long war some within the Heritage Foundation intend to wage until they can depose Lonnie Bunch as the institution’s secretary.}:
The Heritage Foundation has been an incubator of much of Trumpism in style and content. Indeed, if Trumpism is a grandiose media show, Heritage and Kevin Roberts are Trump’s history department, ready and eager to tell you what to think about the nation’s past.
On the eve of America’s 250th anniversary, Roberts leads an organization with hundreds of employees, $100 million on hand in 2023, and support from several extraordinarily wealthy conservative foundations. For more than 50 years, Heritage’s leadership has dreamed of this moment: a presidential administration willing to destroy and then remake the nation’s “heritage” in the service of right-wing triumphalism and now, via Roberts, Christian nationalism. Roberts has a Ph.D. in American history but has come to loathe the universities that bred him. His dissertation, “Slaves and Slavery in Louisiana: The Evolution of Atlantic World Identities, 1791–1831,” is a study of kinfolk and family patterns in the lives of Black people in his home state (he grew up in Lafayette, raised by a single mother after divorce). For this work, he drew upon the revolution in late-twentieth-century scholarship on the social and cultural history of the lives of the enslaved.
Tawny Cryer, Appropriations Committee:
Sam, have you heard of Andrew Hawkins?
Sam Seaborn:
No.
Tawny Cryer, Appropriations Committee:
You funded his performance piece recently, which involved him destroying all his belongings outside a Starbucks in Haight-Ashbury.
Sam Seaborn:
I've done that a couple of times... I didn't know there was funding available.