The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has recently made a significant decision to suspend a controversial requirement that grant applicants certify they would not “promote gender ideology,” a condition put in place under an executive order from the Trump administration. This shift comes as a response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of several arts organizations, arguing that the measure infringes on free speech.
In light of the recent developments, artists are now able to apply for funding without having to sign the contentious pledge. However, it’s important to note that while this requirement has been lifted, broader eligibility restrictions that exclude projects deemed to “promote gender ideology” still remain in place. The legal battle is ongoing, with the ACLU seeking a preliminary injunction to block the restrictions entirely before the final grant application deadline on March 24. A hearing is scheduled for March 18.
Examining the Heart of the Dispute
At the core of this dispute lies President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14168, signed on January 20, the day of his inauguration. The order aims to limit federal support for initiatives that acknowledge gender as a spectrum rather than a binary tied to sex assigned at birth. The NEA integrated this directive into its grant guidelines, requiring applicants to confirm they would not utilize public funds to advocate for these ideas. Following the lawsuit, the NEA agreed on March 8 to remove the certification requirement while the case is pending, although it has not committed to revising its grant selection criteria, as reported by NPR.
This recent decision marks a partial victory for the plaintiffs, which include Rhode Island Latino Arts, National Queer Theater, The Theater Offensive, and the Theater Communications Group. Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney at the ACLU, expressed that this is a significant step towards initial relief in a press release. She also highlighted that the NEA’s broader restrictions still pose a serious threat to artistic freedom.
Critics of the restrictions argue that they go against the very essence of the NEA’s mission. Eidelman emphasized that this new prohibition contradicts the purpose of the NEA and the purpose of art itself, which is to explore ideas and the diversity of human experiences.
Voices from the Arts Community
Artists and arts organizations have raised concerns about the impact of these restrictions on funding eligibility. Adam Odsess-Rubin, the founding artistic director of the National Queer Theater in New York, shared his worries about the uncertainty surrounding funding. The theater is seeking funding for a festival featuring plays by dramatists from countries with anti-LGBTQ+ laws. Odsess-Rubin referred to the restrictions as “a cruel irony” that may render them ineligible for funding due to the U.S. government’s targeting of their “gender ideology.”
The NEA, which has been under scrutiny for its role in implementing Trump-era executive orders, has not publicly addressed the lawsuit. However, the agency has previously adjusted grant conditions in response to legal challenges. In February, following a separate lawsuit, the NEA eliminated a requirement for applicants to pledge compliance with another executive order restricting “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives.
As the March 24 deadline approaches, the outcome of this case holds significant implications for artists seeking federal funding in the current grant cycle. The arts community eagerly awaits further developments in this ongoing legal battle.
