Trump’s return: What does it mean for the arts stateside?

When the broadcaster Alistair Cooke described Harry Truman’s unexpected 1948 US Presidential election victory as “a nightmare that only America could have”, he could scarcely have imagined the political upheavals to come in the following century.

As the United States readies itself for the erection of a giant TRUMP sign on the roof of the White House on 20 January, cultural institutions worldwide have been grappling with an increasingly familiar phenomenon: the rise of populism and its impact on the arts.

The European experience offers a preview of what may lie ahead for American cultural institutions. Across Europe, from Hungary to Poland, from Italy to here in the UK, cultural organisations have weathered various waves of populist governance, each bringing its own challenges to artistic freedom and institutional autonomy.

Politicisation is inevitable

An early battleground typically emerges in institutional leadership. Populist forces have demonstrated a calculated strategy of embedding themselves in cultural institutions through strategic appointments.

In Slovakia, this was manifested in the dismissal of directors at the Slovak National Theatre and National Gallery, with accusations of “progressive-liberal political activism” serving as justification. Similar patterns have played out across Europe, highlighting how voluntary departures from cultural leadership positions can inadvertently create opportunities for insidious entryism.

The UK under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss illustrated that no democracy is immune to such political intervention. While the current Labour government has pledged to end the politicisation of public appointments, even for them recent actions suggest old habits die hard. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservatives, talks of “progressive authoritarianism” – when small ‘l’ liberals are painted as an oppressive force, any vacancy created is seen a chance to tip the balance in the opposite direction.

The mechanisms of control deployed by populist governments often follow a predictable pattern. Hungary’s decade-long centralisation of cultural institutions serves as a cautionary tale, while Poland’s former Law and Justice government actively intervened in museum exhibitions and cultural programming deemed contrary to “traditional values”. Meanwhile Sweden’s far-right Democrats are attempting to establish a ‘Cultural Canon’, a state-approved reading list which reinforces the country’s traditions.

Places where all are welcome?

Cultural institutions are the last bastions of inclusivity under populist regimes. In Germany, where the Alternative for Germany has gained some regional control, theatres face funding threats. That did not stop Reinhard Drogla, director of Piccolo Theater, creating a programme for minorities called simply “don’t be afraid”. 

Similarly, when Slovakia’s culture minister moved to cut funding for sexual minority tolerance projects, cultural buildings and spaces became even more crucial as safe havens.

Financial warfare represents another common tactic. In Denmark, the far-right Danish People’s Party argued for greater privatisation of cultural funding, attempting to reshape the cultural landscape through economic pressure. The UK knows how that feels.

The best-told story wins

When it comes to public opinion, it’s often not the facts but the best-told stories that win the day. Communication becomes a critical battlefield in these struggles. Populist governments excel at constant signalling to their base, using art and culture as cannon fodder, or convenient platforms.

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni used the occasion of a Tolkien exhibition to promote what she sees as traditional ideals. In Britain, institutions attempting to contextualise colonialism have found themselves accused of undermining national values.

The challenge of self-censorship looms large for cultural institutions under populist governance. A visual artist in Poland described the reality of self-censorship when government is hostile to your work: “I don’t know how many ideas I reconsidered because I was tired and fed up and didn’t want to worry about someone showing up to my house to drag me to the prosecutor’s office.”

Yet historical precedent suggests that maintaining artistic integrity is crucial for long-term cultural resilience. It’s important for organisations to think very clearly about what story they want to tell beyond what’s on their stages or in their galleries.

Calculation in the interests of self-preservation – choosing your battles, if you like – need not mean being cowed. For our own sakes, but more importantly for the communities we serve, arts and culture must continue to stand up for hope, human rights, inclusion and conversation across dividing lines.

In it together

For American cultural institutions facing uncertain times, the European experience offers several insights. Maintaining leadership positions where possible, creating welcoming spaces for marginalised groups, cultivating advocates, and confident, empathetic communications are all important strategies.

There will be some – many, in fact – in the USA and around the world for whom 20 January will be a great day. They will expect to see their world view represented on our stages, in our galleries, on the billing at concerts and more. While navigating this, cultural institutions must resist the impulse for self-doubt which populist critics attempt to instil. Solidarity, international solidarity included, is crucial.

As cultural institutions continue to serve as fields of both conversation and conflict in larger political debate, their role as defenders of artistic freedom becomes ever more vital. For American institutions facing uncertain times, the European experience offers some hope – the path ahead may be difficult, but it is not uncharted.

Meanwhile in the UK and Europe, we must watch and learn from what happens in the USA in the coming years. When it comes to being weaponised by populists, next time it could once again, so easily, be us.