Trump Budget To End All Funding For Nat’l Endowment For The Arts, Corporation For Public Broadcasting

trumpThe administration of U.S. President Donald J. Trump released its first federal budget plan this week which calls for the elimination of all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Trump also proposed pulling the plug on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a key source of funding for PBS and Public Radio.

While these organizations have been a point of controversy for conservatives, such as the NEA's funding of photographic exhibits by Robert Mapplethorpe, no U.S. president has proposed eliminating the endowments since they were created in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The NEA regularly makes grants to a variety of artists, including its Jazz Masters grants, which this year recognized artists such as Dee Dee Bridgewater and Dave Holland.

MORE: LET THEM EAT DIAMONDS: Nat'l Endowment For Arts $148M/Year vs Security At Trump Towers: $183M/Year

The total budget for both endowments is about $300 million, which, when combined with CPB's budget of about $450 million amounts to less than .02% of the annual federal budget. By contrast, the budget also includes a $54 billion increase in defense spending, a $2bn 'down payment' on Trump's proposed wall, (wasn't Mexico going to pay for that?) or as Twitter user Elliot Lusztig noted, security at Trump Tower in New York is on track to cost $183 million a year.

Following the news about Trump's proposed cuts, National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Jane Chu released the following statement:

Today we learned that the President’s FY 2018 budget blueprint proposes the elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts. We are disappointed because we see our funding actively making a difference with individuals of all ages in thousands of communities, large, small, urban and rural, and in every Congressional District in the nation.

We understand that the President’s budget request is a first step in a very long budget process; as part of that process we are working with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare information they have requested. At this time, the NEA continues to operate as usual and will do so until a new budget is enacted by Congress.

We expect this news to be an active topic of discussion among individuals and organizations that advocate for the arts. As a federal government agency, the NEA cannot engage in advocacy, either directly or indirectly. We will, however, continue our practice of educating about the NEA’s vital role in serving our nation’s communities.

via CelebrityAccess

Share on:


  1. The cutting of funding to PBS is long overdue. PBS used to be good 20 years ago, but now is garbage – not to mention the constant nagging to views for donations, the commercials that come at the start of every program, the constant advertising of the donors name for decades, the over-staffing, the replay of the same programs that has become so preposterous that the local Chicago Tribune editorial here lampooned as “a Masterpiece Soup that viewers could drop their spoons in,” a reference of old British Masterpiece theater programs having being replayed hundreds or thousands of times, and nobody is watching them anymore. They are just on the air wasting electricity, and keep begging for donations, with few – if any people watching. People with interenet connections can do better – and free- by turning to UTUBE. There are millions of videos there about wars, wildlife, movies of all kinds, boxing and sports videos since the 1990’s, and anything one can imagine -all free, while PBS wastes the taxpayers money on replays after replays for decades. PBS has become just a financial behemoth hole for the taxpayers. It was good 50 years ago; it is pure garbage now! Nikos Retsos, retired professor, blogger and political activist. Chicago

  2. I totally disagree. PBS is important and that it continues with young children, who learn from the shows for pre-school age and older. You assume people can just go to YouTube and watch what they want, but why should they have to when PBS is available, even when some may not have internet. I believe the Masterpiece show Downton Abby would not have won so many awards if no one watched anymore. I don’t believe people would really gripe about the sponsorship commercials; it shows how a program is being able to be shown for viewing. The PBS lineup may be improved for the better, however taking away the funding and channel altogether would be a mistake. It provide new worlds (NOVA, Travel shows, history) of information for people who may not always have that chance to receive information elsewhere. As a child it informed me in areas that I wouldn’t have gotten anywhere else. Today’s children would still benefit from positive viewing options and early learning choices, which would broaden their imagination and open them up to new experiences.

  3. You’re so out of touch that a nuanced, intelligent debate would be a complete waste of time.

Comments are closed.