There are many excoriating ways in which the current administration in Washington might be described; a number of them are perhaps too impolite to appear in a decorous journal such as this. The necessity of restraint does not, however, mean we should refrain from expressing a view on the provocative actions of the new United States government. They are not merely a matter of political theatre that feeds the news cycles, but also a corrosive force that is undermining many valued cultural institutions and having a direct and negative impact on the lives of tens of millions of people. 

The populism that led to this situation and the reasons for it cannot be analysed in depth here. However, its impact on public collections and academic freedoms should be our concern. The 47th President of the United States has been in post since the 20th of January and since then, through a combination of hectoring, empowering staff who are given free rein to be disruptive, and issuing executive orders (which do not require congressional approval), he has rapidly had a destructive impact on American museums and universities, as well as wider creative spheres. At first, domestic opposition appeared to be in many respects riven and muted, although it now seems to be finding its voice. Meanwhile, international reaction has been limited, as other countries are rapidly entering a new age of uncertainty and protectionism and are attempting not to offend the architect of all this chaos, who evidently has such a fragile ego. 

A few key actions of the administration illustrate well its contempt for liberal values. Federally funded national institutions are the focus of its ire. The politeness of an arms-length relationship between government and arts organisations, which respects the expertise in such bodies, has been swept aside. An executive order has directed the Vice President to ‘eliminate improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology’ from the Smithsonian Institute. It includes over twenty-one museums, as well as libraries and research centres; those most familiar to readers of this Magazine might include the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, the National Museum of African Art, the National Museum of Asian Art and the National Portrait Gallery. 

The arrogance that such interventions express has also become rapidly apparent in the egregious treatment of universities. The threat of removing vast swathes of funding for higher education unless the President’s agenda about governance and curtailing free speech is adhered to has conspicuously been focused on Columbia University, which has – much to the distress of many observers – agreed to most of the demands made of it. Similar threats have been made to Harvard University; however, it has stood its ground and refused to give in. This is admirable but only possible because it has economic resources equivalent to that of a small country to insulate it. Numerous not so richly endowed smaller colleges and universities, which are reliant on federal funding, are being scrutinised and are likely to be threatened in the same way. 

Perhaps receiving less coverage than these initiatives, but nonetheless worrying and symbolic of the derision of the administration for cultural assets, is the treatment meted out to the General Services Administration (GSA), the federal agency responsible for managing much of the US government’s real estate and overseeing the significant fine art collection located in its buildings. The collection consists of over 26,000 works, ranging from Civil War–era paintings to exhibits by Alexander Calder, Ed Ruscha and Jenny Holzer. The small department that cares for this extraordinary collection has been abolished, with all staff members made redundant with immediate effect. 

The fate of the Kennedy Center in Washington – which is chiefly a national institution focused on the performing arts – is beyond the normal remit of this Magazine, but the extent of the political intervention that has occurred there is worth noting in this context as it illustrates the level of disruptive ambition this government would clearly like to achieve. The US President has been elected Board Chair by his appointees, following sackings of those who might oppose such a shift in governance. Rows, cancellations and boycotts have rapidly ensued. 

In the context of foreign affairs, it has been widely reported that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has had much of its funding and activities frozen; the work of the agency is, however, in a state of flux as some programmes have been rapidly reinstated. This turmoil will have profound humanitarian consequences (one example might be used to illustrate its extent: USAID provides almost half the funding for the US wing of Save the Children). What has not been so widely discussed is the fact that the agency has had many beneficial roles, including engaging ‘in cultural provisions through various programs [. . .] promoting tolerance and pluralism through arts-based education, supporting cultural heritage preservation, and fostering cultural diplomacy’. 

Is there any good news amid all these dire events? There is some because of the limits imposed on government intervention by the diverse funding landscape for the arts in the US, which is a varied patchwork of different models. Government subsidies for the arts, the future of which is uncertain, are chiefly steered through the National Endowment for the Arts and are thought to account for about seven per cent of not-for-profit cultural activities. Meanwhile, many of the greatest institutions in America (museums, orchestras, opera companies etc.) are not reliant on federal funding streams, but rather state and municipal pride, endowments and earned income, as well as very generous philanthropy from foundations, corporations and individuals. Happily, this is still forthcoming and without a curtailment of artistic freedom attached. 

It is difficult to predict where all these provocations will lead. Presumably there will be more actions of the sort sketched out here and an increasing gulf will form between the values and administration of federal and independent cultural organisations. In order to survive, the federal bodies will in some cases have to make excruciating compromises. At a grass-roots level many creative people will be especially vulnerable. Those who can afford to relocate may well leave the country, resulting in a drain of talent away from the US. International collaborations will perhaps also dry up as some overseas institutions will not want to be seen to endorse such narrow and partisan actions. 

There is a cleverness about all that has occurred in only one sense: it has been enacted with dizzying speed. This has undoubtedly stunned opponents and made formulating legal objections and articulating wider dissent difficult to orchestrate. 

Where there should be statesmanship, we are instead witnessing petulance and parochialism and we will all be reaping the distressing cultural consequences for years to come.