In the United States, the First Amendment ensures broad free speech protections and generally prohibits the government from using its power to punish people for expressing disfavored viewpoints. That said, a few things make free expression feel more risky right now. Single party political rule is typically never good for free expression. The current administration is pressuring various institutions (in higher education, K-12 education, law firms, arts and entertainment, and news media) into compliance with its ideological preferences. Deliberately vague regulations and executive orders (such as executive orders addressing diversity, equity and inclusion and “gender ideology”) cause confusion and fear, and often lead organizations to self-censor.  While courts have the power to strike down laws and executive orders determined to be in violation of the First Amendment, nothing prevents the government from issuing an unconstitutional law or policy in the first place. In order for a court to hold that a government law or policy violates the First Amendment, a constitutional challenge must first be filed by someone whose rights have been violated by the policy (i.e. someone has to sue). That legal process takes time, and even where the government loses, court orders are often limited to the parties in that lawsuit. (i.e. If one organization wins a lawsuit against the NEA for revoking a grant based on a policy that discriminates against a particular viewpoint, the decision of the court may only apply to the plaintiff organization. The court ruling does not necessarily invalidate the policy in question).  It’s also worth remembering: The First Amendment is a specific and limited right. It protects individual people and entities from government censorship wielded by local, State or Federal Governments. It does not protect individual people and entities from censorship by private actors, including social media, galleries, museums, publications, etc. This means that, in practice, people can be subjected to unconstitutional government suppression of speech, as well as private suppression of speech.

Laws in the United States are written by Congress—the legislative branch of government. Executive orders (EO) are directives issued by the president that instruct federal agencies on how to implement existing law. Executive orders are not supposed to create new law, which is exclusively the power of Congress—and they only apply to federal institutions. EOs can be challenged in court and judges can stop their enforcement if the EOs are found to create new law or if they violate constitutional principles. Executive orders are directed at government agencies, such as the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). It is the implementation of EOs by these agencies that has real consequences for the arts. And it is the implementation of the EOs (not the orders themselves) has been successfully challenged in the courts. This was the case with Rhode Island Latino Arts v. NEA, in which plaintiffs allege that the agency’s implementation of an EO resulted in discrimination against particular viewpoints or beliefs expressed by non-governmental entities, like arts institutions or individual artists.  Note: Executive orders (EOs) may have censorious effects without violating the First Amendment—or they may, indeed, violate it—but unless they are challenged and determined to be unconstitutional, they remain in place and can have widespread effects. Several 2025 executive orders have deeply affected the free expression landscape, creating a culture of fear even as their constitutionality might be unclear.

Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” also known as the “Gender Ideology” EO, claims that binary sex is a biological reality and it prohibits the flow of government funds to any federal grantee that “promote[s] gender ideology.” The order was posited as protecting women from gender-based discrimination. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) successfully challenged the National Endowment for the Arts’s (NEA) implementation of the “Gender Ideology” EO. A federal court determined that the NEA grant rules banning projects that “promote gender ideology” violated the First Amendment because it constituted a viewpoint-based restriction on private speech. (As of May 2026 the government is appealing that ruling; more information about the case can be found here.) As of early 2026, the NEA no longer requires compliance with this “Gender Identity” EO after a court found the NEA’s implementation of the EO unconstitutional in September 2025. Grant recipients no longer need to attest that federal funds would not be used to promote “gender ideology.”   Note: We are living in an ever-shifting legal environment. The Government is appealing the September 2025 court decision. Check back here for any future changes or sign up to be notified.

There are two executive orders targeting DEI: Executive Order 14151 (“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”) and Executive Order 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”). EO 14151 targets “DEI” programs inside the federal government, requiring their elimination. EO 14173 targets DEI and affirmative-action requirements in federal employment and contracting, emphasizing merit-based practices and revoking earlier affirmative-action mandates. Both EOs claim that initiatives emphasizing “diversity, equity, and inclusion” are “discriminatory” (implicitly against White, non “diverse” heterosexual cisgendered men without disabilities, since DEI initiatives target ethnic and racial minorities and marginalized groups such as women, people living with disabilities, and LGBTQ individuals). The EOs therefore prohibit government funding of any group that maintains such initiatives.  The Executive Order 14151 (“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”) most directly affects the arts by way of its impact on the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the agency’s grantmaking criteria. This EO requires federal agencies to terminate DEI-related activities and funding, including “equity-related” grants or contracts, which led the NEA to restrict grantmaking for DEI-related programming. The NEA has not formally defined its prohibitions on “DEI projects,” rather, it relies on a general rule that federal funds cannot support projects that use demographic preferences or identity-based eligibility, tying compliance to existing federal anti-discrimination law and the executive orders. All the same, the confusion around this EO affected how arts and cultural organizations presented their projects and eligibility for funding. The same EO had implications at the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), as well. A March 2026 investigative report by the New York Times offers disturbing evidence that many NEH grants were revoked in 2025 in response to the EO’s broad interpretation. In particular, DOGE employees labeled any project involving non-White, minority groups as “DEI.” This included a documentary about enslaved Jewish women during the Holocaust, a multi-volume history of American music, and a project to digitize Black newspapers. The chairman of the NEH signed off on the grant revocations, even though many of them didn’t violate the EO requirements or federal anti-discrimination laws.  NEA directives on DEI in 2026 are less alarming, stating that grant-funded programs may promote DEI as long as they do not violate federal anti-discrimination laws:  “Applicants may not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin in their programs or activities under federal law, whether or not those activities are funded by a federal grant. Whether or not a particular activity constitutes unlawful discrimination does not depend solely on whether it is labeled "DEI" or uses terminology such as "diversity," "equity," or "inclusion."” The Anti-DEI Executive Orders are actively being challenged in court. Parts were temporarily blocked in 2025, but in 2026, a federal appeals court allowed the EOs to take effect while litigation continues. Organizations may still challenge the EOs in court if they lose funding or face enforcement under them. Ultimately, federal agencies must implement the EOs. To do so, they must interpret how the EOs apply to agency activities.

In short: no. The government doesn’t have to support the arts, but when it does, it cannot discriminate against specific viewpoints.  The government can favor certain viewpoints when it comes to its own expression (i.e. when buying art for government offices), but it cannot discriminate based on the views of private speakers (i.e. when giving a grant to a private organization). The government can make grant award decisions based on merit and many other criteria, but it may not deny a grant for the sole reason that the government disagrees with the views expressed in the project.

That government has been vague about how it defines “DEI”-related initiatives in the EO and in NEA regulations. The NEA grant certification requires that applicants comply with existing federal anti-discrimination law. It does not change federal anti-discrimination law, and does not prohibit mention of diversity, equity, inclusion, or accessibility. Existing federal anti-discrimination law generally prohibits employment decisions that are limited to or motivated by race or other protected characteristics. No federal court has held that beliefs, speech, or art about diversity, equity, and inclusion—or even the promotion of ideas celebrating diversity, equity, and inclusion—violate these protections. Therefore, while limiting a paid opportunity (e.g.. grant or employment) to members of a certain race or ethnic group might violate federal anti-discrimination law, having an initiative dedicated to telling specific demographic stories (e.g. an organization devoted to Jewish history or an exhibition featuring portraits of Black Americans) would be fully protected by the First Amendment. Note: Though the above remains true as a matter of law, there is evidence that, in practice, federal agencies have applied prohibitions on “DEI” far more broadly than federal law permits. A March 2026 investigative report by the New York Times offers disturbing evidence that $100 million of National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants were revoked in response to EO 14151, following a broad interpretation by DOGE employees, who labeled any project involving a non-White, minority group as “DEI.” This included a documentary about enslaved Jewish women during the Holocaust, a multi-volume history of American music, and a project to digitize Black newspapers. The chairman of the NEH signed off on the grant revocations, even though many of them didn’t violate the EO requirements and were not discriminatory. Such broad and likely unconstitutional implementation of the EOs is a focus of the lawsuits currently challenging the EOs and grant rules.

As per NEA FAQs 2026: Yes, provided that your programs do not violate federal anti-discrimination law.  “Applicants may not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin in their programs or activities under federal law, whether or not those activities are funded by a federal grant. Whether or not a particular activity constitutes unlawful discrimination does not turn solely on whether it is labeled "DEI" or uses terminology such as "diversity," "equity," or "inclusion." For example, applicants with programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the  world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all participants regardless of race, color, national origin, or other protected criteria.” Tips for dealing with “DEI” restrictions and federal anti-discrimination law: Think about tone and word choice. Avoid trigger words if possible (like “diversity”) while maintaining the integrity of the program’s vision. Frame selection criteria in terms of values, content, or artistic excellence, rather than identity, wherever possible. Project themes can still address identity, but don’t limit participation based on identity. E.g., A grant supporting a show about indigenous Guatemalan experience should not be strictly limited to indigenous Guatemalan applicants, even if they will end up being the artists behind the vast majority of submissions considered. E.g., Grantees for projects focused on feminist themes should not be limited to applicants who identify as women solely because they identify as women.

The Presidential Action titled Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, also referred to as the “combating antisemitism” Executive Order, instructs federal agencies to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism when enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Under that definition, criticisms of the state of Israel (e.g. calling the country a “racist endeavor”) could be labeled antisemitic. The order, though mostly targeted at universities where pro-Palestinian protests took place in 2024, makes it risky to criticise Israeli policies towards Palestinians.  Under this presidential action, non-citizen artists and curators are particularly vulnerable alongside foreign students; the action states that individuals who violate the terms of the order could face removal from the United States.

Determine risk exposure and tolerance internally. This can enable better decision-making when facing tough or unfair situations.  Consider institutional mandates and values: Foster an internal conversation with leadership about the institution’s mission, what risks the organization is willing to bear in order to adhere to its values. That includes considerations regarding the risks/benefits of federal grants, perhaps involving the board. Consider the fiscal risk: Federal agencies or regranting entities may withdraw grant funds if they perceive a show to be at odds with EOs. Even private funders may feel pressure to not support certain projects. Organizations facing this risk might choose to be more cautious in how they frame public statements and program promotion. In other instances, it may be strategic to apply government grants to programs that are less likely to be scrutinized, and identify other funding streams for programs that are not aligned with the government’s ideological priorities. Consider organizational legal liability: Under the False Claims Act (FCA) (31 U.S.C. § 3729), knowingly making a false statement in order to receive a grant can result in penalties. If a grantee signs the NEA compliance form affirming compliance with federal anti-discrimination law, and the government later pursues anti-DEI-based discrimination claims, it may also allege the certification was a false statement. Note: The False Claims Act requires that an organization or its representatives knowingly lied in order for the government to bring civil or criminal charges. Therefore, unless the grantee knew the information they provided was false, or deliberately ignored whether it was true or false, they would be protected. Caution: The FCA offers financial rewards to citizens who successfully help identify organizations that fraudulently received a grant, thereby incentivizing surveillance of and reporting against such organizations. Tip: Organizational leaders should make a record of internal deliberation and good-faith compliance with federal law before signing a statement of compliance. Consider legal risk of collaborators and employees: Assess who is presenting and who is staffing a given event, their risk tolerance, and their legal exposure. For example, immigrant artists, and organizations that support or employ immigrants, are at the highest risk because the immigration system is being leveraged to punish speech, and the government has broad authority to detain and deport immigrants.  Operational security and privacy protections: If you’re putting together a grant program that will likely benefit especially vulnerable groups (trans individuals, noncitizens, etc), do not collect and consolidate their information into a list that the government could later ask for. Anywhere you can, use anonymized, encrypted, analog, community based communications platforms. Avoid using tools like Zoom that might automatically collect people’s information when discussing something sensitive. If you’re an individual and not an institution, ask the institution about these policies and help make them safer for everyone.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) affiliates nationwide Foundation for Individual Rights and Express (FIRE) Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts Artistic Freedom Initiative (AFI)  Arts/Cultural membership and professional organizations often have legal resources available for members The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) can provide non litigation support and general legal information. Even if we can’t represent you in court, we can do important advocacy on your behalf or with you and help distribute information to others. Inquire among your board members. Occasionally they can find legal help.

As with everything else, you have to do your own risk analysis: Consider the state in which you work. Some (generally Republican-led) states are passing unconstitutional laws affecting what teachers and college professors can say in the classroom. Unless these laws are challenged in court, they can be enforced. For example, in some states educators have been fired in the wake of the Charlie Kirk shooting. Some have been reinstated, but not everyone. K-12 public school teachers are the most closely scrutinized, but college professors are not exempt.  If you have more safety and comfort exercising your First Amendment rights, we encourage you to do so, but concern is justified.

Consider the evidence that there was a permission to present the work. Was a theater production reviewed by the appropriate panels? Were the proper permits obtained? Has an exhibition been curated or invited by a museum staff member tasked with the responsibility of selecting artists and exhibition themes? Check precedent: have permits not generally been required and has your production been singled out? If the answer is yes to one or more of the above and the exhibition or production has been cancelled, there is reason to suspect censorship. Consider the reasons given for the removal or cancellation. A convincing-sounding citation of the law, may in fact be invalid!  No reasons given for the removal? No written documentation? It is likely that those making the decision know that the removal violates First Amendment requirements or/and the principles of academic freedom. Is the campus administration making efforts to suppress discussion about the removal or cancellation by threatening student journalists, barring them from student publications, or preventing an artist from speaking on campus? This may indicate the administration is aware it has  violated academic freedom and free speech principles and seeks to avoid publicity.  The answers to these questions will help you determine if you are facing a case of art censorship on campus.

Ask questions. Who ordered the removal? If a law is cited to justify the censorship, ask how the display of the artwork breaks the law.  Seek support from experts in defending artistic freedom in the United States. The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) has a censorship report form. All submissions are confidential unless otherwise discussed and agreed to by the submitting party. NCAC’s Arts and Culture Advocacy is the only national project of its kind solely dedicated to defending artistic freedom in the United States. Dramatists Guild and Dramatists Legal Defense Fund have expertise and legal resources to support, and they also accept reports of censorship as it relates to theater and performance.  Don’t stay quiet. Control your own narrative, and remember: censorship thrives in silence! You can post your experience on social media, share with friends and other artists. Contact reporters, write an OpEd, and consider ways to get your story out.  Welcome support from affected groups and allies. Speak with students, exhibiting artists, and/or faculty.  Students can protest on campus.  Students may wish to cover the incident in campus publications. Faculty may wish to sign an open letter  Faculty may invite you and/or other censored artists to discuss the issue within a class context. Find another way to present or reclaim the spirit of your project.  Consider taking the project to a nearby but off-campus venue, and using crowdfunding to make it happen. Consider withdrawing other elements of your work in visible protest, this can help draw attention to the matter. Consider the ways that amplifying the message of the project—and why it was a target of censorship—can help achieve the goals of the project.