Parables of Earth is a recurring column from NPQ’s Climate Justice desk exploring the connections between climate and art. Inspired in part by Octavia E. Butler, this column expands our lens on climate justice and taps into our deeply human inclination for creative expression—for joy, for strength, and for imagining new worlds.
“If our position means no more NEA grants for Tupelo Press, so be it. To act otherwise would be immoral.”
That’s part of the statement issued by Tupelo Press, a nonprofit literary publisher located on the East Coast of the United States. The statement was emailed to writers and posted on Facebook in the wake of changes announced by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the independent agency of the US federal government that supports the arts and artists.
Amidst the flurry of executive orders issued by Trump since he took office a month ago, agencies and organizations are struggling to operate under frozen budgets, with suddenly fired or furloughed staff, and to stay in compliance with ever-shifting and confusing restrictions. That includes the NEA. As an agency of the federal government, NEA falls under the purview of the anti-DEI orders coming from the president.
“Applicants must certify that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI…including programs outside the scope of their NEA project.”
In early February, the NEA dramatically revised its guidelines for grants for arts groups and organizations. In order to be considered for grants, among other new restrictions, groups need to agree to “not operate any programs promoting ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI).” The NEA also announced an abrupt end to its Challenge America grant program, which specifically supported small arts projects in underserved communities and had been in existence for over two decades.
These changes have sent shockwaves through artistic communities. Groups that received NEA grants mere months before also fear their funding and the future of their organizations may be in jeopardy. As The New York Times reported, “It is unclear what the new rules will mean for groups seeking grants, or for those that already have them in the pipeline. Many arts organizations have pledged to support diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, and several groups that have received funding in the past have presented works about transgender and nonbinary people.”
How do the new anti-DEI guidelines of the NEA compare to the previous guidelines the NEA issued just weeks before? What is the response from artists and artistic groups? And how can arts nonprofits find support if one of their largest funders is no longer available or now excludes them?
The Pre-Trump NEA Guidelines
Historically, the NEA has offered a series of funding opportunities for both individual practicing artists (including visual artists, writers, performers, composers, and directors) and groups that promote the arts or art initiatives, including nonprofits. On its website, the NEA describes itself as “the only arts funder in the United States—public or private—that provides access to the arts in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. jurisdictions. Our work extends into communities of all sizes across America through a vast network that includes artists, arts workers, audiences, learners, and organizations at the local, state-wide, regional, and national levels.”
In the past, the NEA has supported community arts centers, dance companies, teaching assistants, public art, new-theatre festivals, and projects that incorporate climate or STEM and the fine arts, to name just a handful. Many of its grantees have included organizations or specific projects aimed at improving access to the arts for all communities: a program that trains sighted dancers to move with blind dancers, for example, and a mentorship opportunity for Indigenous filmmakers and storytellers.
In a previous set of guidelines published by the NEA for grants for literary arts organizations, which were due in July 2024 and obtained by NPQ via a source who wished to remain anonymous, there were no restrictions on content or diversity. In fact, “Consideration of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in relation to the project and within your organization” is listed as a strength that “competitive proposals…typically include.”
“We know better: the arts are for and represent everybody. We can’t give that up.”
According to the 2024 guidelines, proposals “may include but are not limited to” efforts and programs, including:
Capacity-building activities—such as leadership and professional development, transition planning, and emergency preparedness—for organizations with a mission to serve historically underserved groups and communities. “Underserved groups and communities,” includes populations whose opportunities to experience and participate in literary arts have been limited by factors such as geography, race or ethnicity, economics, or disability.
The 2024 guidelines also note: “As a reminder, in the federal-funding context, a focus on a particular group or demographic may be permissible, but exclusion is not. This extends to hiring practices, artist selection processes, and audience engagement. Your application should make it clear that project activities are not exclusionary.”
“Assurance of Compliance”
In the new February 2025 guidelines, the “Assurance of Compliance” section, which previously referred to federal civil rights, now highlights the president’s executive orders.
The guidelines on the website warn that by signing the application for funding consideration, “We [the NEA] may conduct a review of your organization to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with these statutes, regulations, and executive orders. If the NEA determines that a recipient has failed to comply with any of these statutes, regulations, or executive orders, it may suspend or terminate the award, and/or recover the funds. The applicant’s assurance of compliance is subject to judicial enforcement.”
Sign up for our free newsletters
Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.
In a February 18 webinar on Grants for Arts Projects (GAP), the “Assurance of Compliance” language was addressed by Michelle Hoffman, arts education director of the Literary Arts & Arts Education Division of the NEA. Hoffman described the assurance as “a long-standing legal requirement that all recipients of federal funds comply with applicable federal anti-discrimination laws, regulations, and executive orders.” She noted, “They were updated on the NEA’s website last week in alignment with the announcement of the updated guidelines and recent executive orders.”
Hoffman went on to say, “In accordance with the president’s executive orders, the NEA will not fund projects that include DEI activities. Applicants must certify that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate federal anti-discrimination laws, including programs outside the scope of their NEA project.”
The “programs outside the scope of their NEA project” statement was not explained in the webinar, nor was a graphic that described the “Assurance of Compliance” as a “decades-long requirement.”
Other Sources of Support
The reaction from arts organizations and artists has been swift. Nearly 500 artists from a variety of disciplines signed a letter to the NEA calling for a rollback of these new guidelines. According to NPR, the letter read in part: “Trump and his enablers may use doublespeak to claim that support for artists of color amounts to ‘discrimination’ and that funding the work of trans and women artists promotes ‘gender ideology’ (whatever that is). But we know better: the arts are for and represent everybody. We can’t give that up.”
“We will prioritize people over process, programs, or federal funding. With the support of our community, we will continue our mission.”
NPR also reported that the NEA had not received the letter as of February 18, according to an NEA spokesperson, who added: “The National Endowment for the Arts is a federal agency and will fully comply with the law.”
In their statement, Tupelo Press categorized the new guidelines as “appalling” and said the nonprofit was taking “the strongest possible stand against” them while acknowledging their support for NEA staff.
Other arts groups said they were turning away from the NEA as a source of support, focusing instead on smaller and more local sources of funding, including regional funders. Jenni Werner, executive artistic director of the nonprofit the New Harmony Project, which supports playwrights and storytellers, wrote in an open letter, “We will prioritize people over process, programs, or federal funding. With the support of our community, we will continue our mission.”
It’s important to note that these revised guidelines only apply to groups seeking arts funding from the NEA. As of press time, no changes have been announced to the guidelines for individual artists. That next NEA application cycle applies to creative writers, with grant applications due in March.
But some individual artists, along with arts nonprofits, have announced they will not even try to seek support anymore from the NEA, whose competitive grants have long been held in high esteem. This issue goes beyond operations and funding and into the broader purpose of art.
If we now find ourselves in a country and time when artists fear to express themselves, when storytellers fear telling the truth, even—or especially—if it is their own personal truth, what kind of mirror are we holding up to our present and how can we envision our future? We need art for escape, for joy and understanding, and we need our artists more than ever as we face a dramatically shifting world to help us imagine a better future.
For more on this topic:
Parables of Earth: Self-Care for Those Who Still Care
Nonprofits Self-Censoring in Wake of Trump Actions
The Only Nonprofit Literary Distributor in the Country Has Closed
