Trump Budget Calls For Elimination Of National Endowment For The Arts
The NEA received an appropriation of $207 million in the most recent fiscal year.
More from Deadline
Los Angeles Times Undergoes Another Round of Layoffs; Guild Says 14 Members Impacted
Jon Voight Has A Plan To Save Hollywood: Will Trump Or Anyone Else Care?
Donald Trump's Latest Executive Order Directs An End To Federal Funding For NPR And PBS; "Blatantly Unlawful," PBS CEO Says -- Update
Meanwhile, some arts groups have reported getting notice that grants that have already been awarded are being withdrawn. Portland Playhouse said that the NEA informed them on Friday evening that a $25,000 grant to support a production of 'Joe Turner's Come and Gone' was being rescinded.
'To receive this news on the eve of opening night is deeply disappointing,' the playhouse said in a statement. 'While we have no plans currently to cancel our production, moving forward without the support of this critical funding presents a significant challenge for our company.
'We know we're not alone. Arts organizations across the country are grappling with reduced support at a time when the need for community, connection, and cultural expression is vital. Your support of our cultural institutions is more crucial now than ever before.'
The New York Times first reported on the withdrawn grants. Earlier this year, the NEA announced a shift in grant priorities to projects in support of the 250th anniversary of the United States. The NEA also canceled another grant program, Challenge America. That program had an emphasis on 'small organizations for projects that extend the reach of the arts to underserved groups/communities.'
In his first term, Trump's budgets repeatedly called for the elimination of NEA funding, but Congress, which sets the budget, ignored that proposal. Instead, NEA funding steadily increased during his first term.
Trump's latest budget proposal also calls for eliminating funding to the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, along with a host of other small agencies.
Trump already singed an executive order to eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services, but that dismantling has been challenged in court. On Thursday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from doing so, per the AP.
The president also signed an executive order this week ordering the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop funding PBS and NPR. The CPB and the public media outlets said that the president did not have the authority to do so and are weighing their next steps. The corporation already is suing the administration over its effort to fire three of the five members of the CPB board, including Sony's Tom Rothman. Trump's latest budget proposal also calls for zeroing out CPB funding.
Erin Harkey, the CEO of Americans for the Arts, which advocates for federal arts funding, called the moves 'a systematic effort to undermine the nation's cultural fabric.' She also noted administration efforts to reduce staff of the National Endowment for the Humanities by 70% and to cancel current and future grants.
A spokesperson for the NEA did not immediately return a request for comment.
Best of Deadline
2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
Brad Pitt's Apple 'F1' Movie: Everything We Know So Far
Everything We Know About 'Nine Perfect Strangers' Season 2 So Far
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What a weaker dollar means for inflation
The US dollar ( has fallen this year, and that can have big implications for inflation. RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas talks about that connection and when the impact of tariffs may start to show in the US economy. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime. turning out to the dollar index, it's seen many swings we know amid economic uncertainty. Joe, you highlight what the moves in the currency mean for inflation? Walk us through that. All right. When you get a sustained 10% decline in the value of the dollar, typically, you should expect to see a 1/2 of 1% increase in inflation over the next 6 to 12 months. We clearly are at that point, even though we had a nice rebound. I think it was 3.3% for the month of July, strongest month for the greenback this year, but nevertheless, the policy mix out of the administration, all points towards a weaker dollar, and I think that's what we're going to get. Moreover, when you take a look at import prices, especially import prices ex petroleum, it tells the tale. We're going to see more inflation and a weaker dollar going forward. Does Trump want a strong dollar? I would think he does, and I think, well, I think like all politicians, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He doesn't want de-dollarization, clearly, but he wants a weaker dollar because A, it really tends to juice the tech sector, and B, it will provide relief to the beleaguered manufacturing sector that's been in an effective recession for the past couple of years. Is it too soon to say the kind of impact the softer dollars had during this earnings season, particularly what it's meant for the multinationals? It's way too early to jump on that bandwagon. I think we're really going to be talking in the fourth quarter earnings, and then next year. Moreover, a lot of those firms that he wants to help are actually having real problems with the tariff issue because, you know, 45% of everything we import goes into domestic manufacturing. So policies at a cross purposes, a good portion of the time this year, which is why that economy slowed to 1.2% growth in the first half of the year, and we think it's not going to do much better. Our forecast for this year is 1.1%. Can I ask you when we talk about these tariff policies? We've been talking about them all show. There's the near to intermediate impact, but how long do we have to wait to see what the long-term impact is? Meaning, do I have to wait till does it have to be August 2026, and Joe and Josh are back on set for me to really know, okay, it's really boosted manufacturing job. It's really opened up all these new markets for American business. It's really raised this much revenue. It's a little worse, actually. So as of midnight last night, on once we get to October 5th, we're going to have an effective 18.3% tariff. The real problem is we won't really understand what any of this means, not till October 5th, 2026, but more like October 5th, 2027. Why? Why do you say that, Joe? Because it takes so long to pass through the tariff costs. You know, there are four points along the chain. You've got your retail, you've got your consumers, you've got your importers, and you've got your exporters. At each point of the supply chain, you're going to see a bit of it absorbed, a bit of it eaten. When we went through this in 2018, for example, we didn't see the full price of the increase in the price of washing machines, dryers, and dishwashers caused by tariffs show up on consumers' balance sheets until about two years later. Turned out 90% of that cost was eaten entirely by consumers. So when we talk about whether where the cost falls falls on the value chain, and there was this big debate, maybe it's really the key debate inside the Fed. Tell me if I'm wrong, but this debate about whether the the the tariff induced inflation is one time or transitory persistent. Even if it's one time, it could go on for some time. Is that part of the point? Well, that's right, and that's why they've been counseling patients because you just don't know. Right now, for all of the noise, right? The tariff rate that's showing up, which is causing revenues to rise, right? And from the Trump administration's point of view, that's an absolutely good thing. It's about 8.85%. It's not 30, it's not 50, it's not 15. But as we get into mid-October, it'll be closer to 20 is my sense because we're still not done with Mexico, and we're still not done with China, and then USMCA has to be renegotiated next year. So this is going to be a variable target. It's going to be a moving target, but nevertheless, if you cause the average price of goods imported in the United States to rise by 18.3%, that's going to be eaten. And here's why we say that. There's a lot of talk that, well, foreign exporters are just eating the price. You know, they're going to engage in invoice pricing. If that was the case, import prices would be falling significantly. They're not. They're actually rising. So that's just not happening. So that means it's not the exporter, it's going to be the importer, the retail, or the consumer. Those points on the chain where those are going to be eaten. Joe, I can honestly say that given the news flow today, you were the perfect guy to be sitting in that chair. That's very kind of you to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much, Joe.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to Shutter After Trump Cuts
(Bloomberg) -- The Corporation for Public Broadcasting said that it will begin to wind down operations after President Donald Trump signed a package of spending cuts that ended its federal funding. The World's Data Center Capital Has Residents Surrounded An Abandoned Art-Deco Landmark in Buffalo Awaits Revival We Should All Be Biking Along the Beach Budapest's Most Historic Site Gets a Controversial Rebuild San Francisco in Talks With Vanderbilt for Downtown Campus 'Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,' CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison said in a statement Friday. 'CPB remains committed to fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities and supporting our partners through this transition with transparency and care,' Harrison added. CPB said that it informed its employees that the majority of staff positions will end with the close of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, 2025. The corporation had 105 employees as of 2022. Last month, Congress clawed back $535 million in previously approved annual spending on CPB though 2027. The cuts were part of a $9 billion package of so-called rescissions inspired by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. Musk left his role overseeing the federal cost-cutting effort in May. The law ended a half-century of funding for the corporation, which finances the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio. Those outlets receive a small portion of their funding from federal sources in addition to dollars from sponsors and individual donors. Supporters of public broadcasting warn the cuts to CPB will force the closure of smaller rural stations across the country. 'For over half a century, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has partnered with PBS and our member stations to serve communities large and small in every corner of the country,' Jason Phelps, a spokesman for PBS, said in a statement. 'As this remarkable institution winds down, PBS is committed to building on CPB's legacy and maintaining our service to the American people for years to come.' NPR President and CEO Katherine Maher said in a statement that the 'closure of CPB represents the loss of a major institution and decades of knowledge and expertise.' 'We will continue to respond to this crisis by stepping up to support locally owned, nonprofit public radio stations and local journalism across the country, working to maintain public media's promise of universal service, and upholding the highest standards for independent journalism and cultural programming in service of our nation,' Maher said. The nonprofit CPB's most recent tax return showed that it received 99.8% of its income from government grants. By law, more than 70% of that federal funding went directly to more than 1,500 local public radio and television stations, according to the corporation's financial statements. The typical station relies on CPB's federal funding for about 13% of its revenue. Public broadcasting has been a target of both cultural and fiscal conservatives for more than three decades, with complaints that its national programming and news often skewed to the left. 'The kind of money that's being wasted, and it's a very biased view,' Trump said in March. 'And I'd be honored to see it end.' (Updates to add PBS, NPR statements starting in 7th paragraph) How Podcast-Obsessed Tech Investors Made a New Media Industry Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin's Handpicked Super App Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Cage-Free Eggs Are Booming in the US, Despite Cost and Trump's Efforts ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
CNN
19 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's tariffs are as unpopular as ever, but the GOP's tolerance is growing
Donald Trump TariffsFacebookTweetLink Follow There has been something of a shift in the conventional wisdom about President Donald Trump's tariffs of late. On the one hand, economists and political analysts have warmed to the idea that Trump is more or less getting what he bargained for out of his threats of a global trade war. This has come as a number of foreign nations come to the table and, in a few cases, cut apparent deals. On the other, that's different from saying Trump's tactics will ultimately work. And the picture there certainly got more complicated this week, including with yet more judges suggesting they could rein in Trump's tariff authorities and the increasingly troubling economic numbers highlighted by another bad jobs report Friday. Many have been wondering when (and if) the economic pain many economists predicted would actually arrive, and signs are increasing that it might be upon us. In other words, we seem to be at an inflection point, particularly with Trump signaling Thursday that he'll finally press forward with global tariffs (probably!) next week. But how is all of this playing? Are people reevaluating their previous positions? It's too soon to gauge public opinion on Trump's latest moves this week. But the short answer is that we haven't seen many shifts of late in the already pretty dismal views of Trump's trade war at the macro level; if anything, views appear to have gotten slightly worse. But there have been some key shifts that suggest his base is more on-board than it used to be, which could allow Trump to press forward. Overall, foreign trade and tariffs remain some of the president's worst issues, and it continues to look like the policy that very few people (besides Trump) are asking for right now. Gallup polling shows Trump's approval on 'foreign trade' dropping from 42% in February to 36% in mid-July. Fox News polling around the same time showed Americans disapproved of Trump on tariffs by a 26-point margin, virtually the same as in April (25 points). And CBS News-YouGov polling shows people increasingly dislike that this is a priority for Trump. Its most recent data, from mid-July, show 61% say Trump is too focused on tariffs, similar to April but up from March. It also showed a new high in the percentage of people who say Trump isn't focused enough on lowering prices (70%). (This also ties into the tariffs, because tariffs are often inflationary.) The CBS data also show a slight drop in the percentage of Americans who think Trump's policies are making them better off financially (23% in March versus 18% today), and an increase in perceptions that his policies are making food prices increase (52% in March versus 62% today). Overall, Americans went from opposing the tariffs by 12 points in March to opposing them by 20 points today. So if there is a vibe shift on Trump's tariffs, it hasn't really shown up in the polls – at least yet. But as with most things Trump, overall views probably don't matter as much as how his base feels. The president has proven over and over again that he's happy to plow ahead as long as his supporters are on board. And those supporters might be growing in their tolerance for this gambit. The percentage of Republicans who say Trump is focused too much on tariffs in the CBS poll actually fell from 34% in April to 28% today. And polling from Quinnipiac University suggests Republicans are also less pessimistic about economic pain from the tariffs. Republicans were already much more patient with Trump's gambit. More than 8 in 10 said in that polling in both April and today that the tariffs were likely to help the economy over the long term. That's been consistent. But there has been a shift in Trump's favor in views of their short-term impact. While Republicans back in April were about evenly split on whether the tariffs would help or hurt in the short term, they now say by about a 2-to-1 margin that they'll help over the short term. While Republicans in April said 46-44% that the tariffs would help in the short term, they now say that 62-30%. Republicans also overwhelmingly express confidence in Trump's strategy on tariffs, saying it's working, 84-9%, in Quinnipiac's July polling. All of which suggests Trump's leash on this has lengthened with his base, which matters a great deal. It means GOP lawmakers who might feel compelled to try and check Trump on this gambit will probably be less likely to do so. But all of this is subject to change, particularly if the economic numbers look suspect like many economists predicted they will. How Republicans respond to that is when the rubber will really meet the road and the White House could face some really hard choices.
