As the art market sinks and federal funding shrinks, what will it take to protect arts, culture, and democracy?

Authoritarian leaders have long used art to promote propaganda and suppress dissent. In Fascist Italy, Benito Mussolini’s Ministry of Popular Culture issued daily orders telling editors what to print. In Nazi Germany, the 1937 Degenerate Art exhibition displayed 650 works confiscated from museums as examples of art the regime deemed unacceptable; thousands more were later destroyed. In 1942, Mao Zedong’s Talks at the Yan’an Forum declared that art should serve the Communist Party, setting a framework for state control over cultural life that intensified during the Cultural Revolution.\

History repeats itself, ever unsettling. The current administration increasingly uses federal power to shape what institutions can teach, fund, and make available. As an art critic working in the United States who grew up in China, I have watched that tension from both sides. On a recent reporting trip back to China, independent galleries told me they receive no public funding, while state-controlled museums require exhibition proposals to be approved before installation. In the United States, the Trump administration proposed eliminating both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities in May 2025, while the NEA canceled hundreds of grants to theaters, publishers, festivals, and other arts organizations. That leaves me with a question: How do we protect artistic freedom when the artists and institutions that sustain it still rely on government support? Although Congress ultimately rejected the administration’s attempt to eliminate the NEA and NEH and funded each at $207 million for fiscal year 2026, that decision did not reverse the damage caused by the earlier cuts. As of August 2026, the court said the government still had not provided a full accounting of how many grants had been reinstated, how much money had been paid, or how much remained outstanding, and NEH says the process can take several months. The Kennedy Center also shows how quickly political power can change a cultural institution. After Trump reshaped its board and became chairman, the board added his name to the center even though federal law reserves that authority for Congress; a federal judge later ordered the name removed. Last week, the board voted to close the center for up to two years for renovations; Trump raised demolition as a possibility, and a federal judge ordered the administration to give 30 days’ notice before taking any such step. A national cultural institution meant to uphold democratic values and protect cultural freedom now risks doing the opposite, deepening division and putting already targeted communities under greater pressure. Federal grant rules have shifted, too. Executive orders issued in 2025 directed agencies to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and imposed new restrictions tied to DEI and what the administration calls “gender ideology.” The NEH now bars grant funds from promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives. When funding disappears for artists from marginalized communities, democracy suffers because fewer of them can participate in cultural programming to reshape the public conversation. When I interviewed Berlin-based American artist Christine Sun Kim last March about her Whitney Museum exhibition, she said DEI-related funding cuts had already canceled several upcoming projects and worried about what fewer resources would mean for Deaf children coming after her. New York-based deaf transgender artist Chella Man described a similar problem: income from DEI speaking engagements once helped fund their art, but companies have increasingly pulled back from inclusion and accessibility work. New York artist and professor Kamari Carter has seen two group exhibitions he was involved with canceled, including a 2022 show about Black artists creating amid political turmoil that a gallery could no longer afford. Carter said those cancellations can also erase workshops, public programs, and future chances for artists to show their work. “The longstanding effects are as much, if not more, detrimental to present and future working artists,” he told me. Recent federal funding cuts, along with the historical examples above, show why cultural institutions cannot rely on one government to protect artistic freedom. The goal is not to replace public funding, but to build a stronger system that combines federal, state, and local grants with philanthropy, memberships, private donors, and community partnerships. That way, a change in administration does not immediately put years of cultural work at risk. State and local governments should provide an important buffer. For example, in fiscal year 2026, New York City’s Department of Cultural Affairs awarded $74.3 million to 1,171 cultural organizations, with more than half receiving multi-year support, the highest level in the program’s history. Public agencies can expand that model through multi-year, unrestricted grants, while foundations, businesses, universities, museums, and community organizations can pool resources or jointly fund programs that might otherwise depend on a single grant. Artists should not have to carry that burden themselves, especially when many already work with limited financial security. Unions and professional organizations can provide emergency grants, legal assistance, shared services, and collective bargaining, while museums, foundations, archives, and universities can help fund documentation, preservation, and long-term stewardship of artists’ work. The answer is not to abandon public funding. It is to make sure no organization lives or dies by a single grant. Arts groups can build recurring memberships, cultivate more small and mid-level donors, set aside reserve funds, and create endowments when possible. State and local governments can also step in when federal priorities shift. In fiscal year 2026, New York City’s Department of Cultural Affairs awarded $74.3 million to 1,171 cultural organizations, with more than half receiving multi-year support, the highest level in the program’s history. More public agencies could follow that model by offering multi-year, unrestricted grants that let organizations plan beyond the next budget cycle. Artists need similar protections. Unions and professional groups can offer emergency grants, legal help, shared resources, and collective bargaining. Artists can also protect their work for the long term by organizing archives, documenting major projects, naming stewards, and creating clear plans for how their work should be preserved and shown beyond their careers. The rest of us have a role, too: show up. See the exhibition before it closes. Subscribe to the literary magazine. Buy the book from the independent press. Become a member of the small museum or gallery you keep returning to. Give $10 per month before a cultural nonprofit reaches a crisis.\

Artistic freedom lasts only when the systems we build support it.\

*Xintian Tina Wang is an award-winning arts and culture journalist whose work has appeared in TIME, HuffPost, NBC News, ELLE, ARTNews, and Observer. Her work has been recognized by the Gracie Awards, United Nations Correspondents Association, Gold House, and Boston Short Film Festival. As president of the Asian American Journalists Association’s New York Chapter, she leads programs advancing media equity. *