ACLU Sues NEA Over Funding Restrictions on Gender Ideology

News Summary

The ACLU of Rhode Island has sued the National Endowment for the Arts, challenging new funding restrictions imposed under an executive order by the Trump administration that targets projects promoting ‘gender ideology.’ The lawsuit raises concerns over First Amendment rights and the potential bias in grant evaluations. The NEA plans to review compliance on a grant-by-grant basis, but skepticism remains regarding the future of diverse artistic expressions. Community leaders stress the importance of NEA funding for creativity and audience engagement in the arts.

Providence, Rhode Island – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island is taking legal action against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) over its funding restrictions related to what the Trump administration calls “gender ideology.” The ACLU is urging the NEA to clarify how its funding complies with an executive order that aims to restrict federal support for projects that promote this ideology.

In an amended complaint and discovery requests filed in the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, the ACLU argues that the NEA’s guidelines do not provide adequate assurances that grants awarded to artists will remain free from restrictions based on the content of their work. The ACLU contends that adhering to the executive order infringes upon artists’ First Amendment rights and various other constitutional protections, insisting that grant decisions should be solely based on artistic merit.

According to Lead ACLU attorney Vera Eidelman, the NEA must take measures to guarantee that the evaluation of grant proposals remains unbiased and focused purely on artistic excellence. Eidelman stated that if the NEA continues to follow a policy deemed discriminatory against certain viewpoints, further legal actions will be sought for permanent relief in the courts.

This lawsuit originally surfaced in March, where it encompassed four arts organizations: Rhode Island Latino Arts, National Queer Theater, The Theater Offensive, and the Theater Communications Group. The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction to stop the NEA from enforcing compliance with the executive order, especially given an impending grant application deadline of April 7.

In February, the NEA’s application guidelines explicitly required applicants to affirm that their projects would not promote gender ideology if they were to receive funding. Following court evaluations, Judge William E. Smith noted a significant possibility of success for the ACLU’s claims but ultimately postponed any decisions, requesting that the NEA reassess its compliance with the executive order by April 30.

The subsequent NEA guidelines have shifted to a model where compliance with the executive order will now be evaluated on a grant-by-grant basis. The NEA’s chair retains the discretionary power to award or decline grants following statutory criteria. Importantly, the updated guidelines specify that no formal certification from applicants regarding any promotion of gender ideology is required.

Despite these changes, ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown has expressed skepticism about whether the updated NEA guidelines truly address concerns around potential influence from vague ideological standards on grant evaluations. This skepticism raises questions about the NEA’s commitment to supporting a diverse range of artistic expressions without bias.

Communications between the ACLU and the NEA show that the latter has not publicly responded to inquiries concerning these recent developments. During the court proceedings, ACLU attorney Scarlet Kim emphasized that NEA’s actions stand at odds with the Administrative Procedures Act, which regulates how federal agencies implement their policies.

A memo issued by NEA Senior Advisor Mary Anne Carter indicated that previous NEA policies regarding the executive order have been rendered obsolete. Although the checkbox for grant certification concerning gender ideology has been removed, the ACLU continues to caution that this does not safeguard against discriminatory practices that could emerge in the future.

Community leaders and artists have stressed the critical importance of NEA grants in expanding audience engagement and supporting diverse artistic endeavors. They believe that the uncertainty surrounding grant evaluation criteria may stifle creativity and artistic expression across various fields of art.

The ongoing legal battle encapsulates a broader cultural conflict over artistic expression and funding within the context of federal regulation, raising essential questions about the role of government in the arts and the implications of ideology on creative freedom.

Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic

HERE Resources

Additional Resources

• Boston Globe: ACLU Sues NEA Over Funding Restrictions
• WPRI: NEA Removes Certification Requirement Following ACLU Lawsuit
• Providence Journal: Theater Groups Challenge Trump’s Executive Order
• Encyclopedia Britannica: First Amendment
• Rhode Island Current: LGBTQ Theater Groups in Court Over Arts Funding
• Google Search: ACLU Lawsuit NEA 2025
• Providence Business News: ACLU and Arts Organizations Sue NEA
• Google Scholar: First Amendment and Artistic Expression