The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 declared that the humanities are essential for enhancing America’s global leadership “in the realm of ideas and of the spirit,” and for supporting U.S. democracy, which “demands wisdom and vision in its citizens.”
The National Endowment for the Humanities was born from these declarations. It is the only federal agency dedicated to the humanities, encompassing history, literature, linguistics, law, philosophy, archaeology, language, comparative religion and ethics. Its companion agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, is the largest federal funder of the arts and arts education in the country, supporting communities to engage with and practice such creative work as painting, sculpture, music and dance.
The 1965 founding legislation captures the government’s original belief that the humanities are vital for the greater good of society, enabling citizens to flourish both as individuals and in their civic lives. The humanities embodied then — and still embody now — the high value Americans should place on preserving the nation’s cultural heritage and fostering respect for the diverse beliefs and values that define our nation.
Recent devastating news reveals how far we have moved from those ideals of 60 years ago. Over 1,200 grants funded by the NEH are on the chopping block and pervasive cuts are already being implemented. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has recommended reducing NEH administrative staff by up to 80 percent, in addition to canceling grants previously awarded by the Biden administration. The White House’s recommendations on discretionary funding levels for fiscal year 2026 call for “the elimination of, or the elimination of funding for,” both the NEH and the NEA.
The NEH receives over 5,000 grant applications annually and approves around 20 percent of them. The mass reduction to its funding jeopardizes the original federal mission for advancing the humanities, not to mention the practical support for constituencies across the nation.
In its six decades of existence, the NEH has awarded over $6 billion in grants to educators and researchers at colleges and universities; independent scholars outside higher education; K-12 education; museums, libraries and historic sites; state councils that redistribute funds locally; and public television and radio stations. Last year, the agency had a budget of $211 million for its operations and grantmaking, compared to the inaugural federal appropriation of $5.9 million it received 60 years ago.
The vulnerability of the humanities to defunding at the federal level is not new. Since the 1980s, the NEH has consistently faced partisan threats, despite the evidence of its ongoing positive cultural and economic impact on America. Since then, calls to defund or even eliminate the NEH and NEA have grown louder, culminating this past January with the introduction in the House of the “Defund National Endowment for the Humanities Act of 2025.” The bill, which aims to curtail the full implementation of the original National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, is stuck in committee.
This period of escalating federal scrutiny over NEH funding coincides with American society’s own skepticism over the vocational worth of the humanities. For decades, academic administrators, faculty, students and parents have beheld “the crisis of the humanities,” focusing on whether majoring in English and other humanities subjects — rather than in science, technology, engineering and mathematics — is a worthwhile vocational choice in the 21st century.
I have written elsewhere about the self-fulfilling myth that the humanities detract from the “hard” or “direct” skills necessary for professional careers. The misleading narrative that a humanities degree cannot help a student secure a job ignores the evidence that these subjects have given rise to lucrative academic and nonacademic careers. Further research shows that studying the humanities contributes to postgraduate and workforce success.
One may be tempted to isolate these federal and public circumstances to the humanities’ own demise. Rather, they telegraph the potential fate of the federal government’s support of academic research and education in general.
In recent months, the federal funding of research universities — including Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Pennsylvania and Princeton — has been jeopardized. The funding in question has primarily involved the social, natural and engineering sciences, most prominently from the National Institutes of Health. There is even word of impending cuts to the National Science Foundation’s programs, funding and staffing. Like the NEH, the NSF seeks to establish America’s intellectual leadership; founded in 1950, its mission is to “promote the progress of science” and “advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare.”
Humanities faculty may not face the same level of funding cuts as their counterparts in the sciences, who rely heavily on grants for research funding. But the end result remains the same: a severing of the historical compact between the federal government and the academy in creating, circulating and advancing knowledge for the public good.
We have already seen more than one petition or statement from academic and learned societies expressing disapproval of the federal mistreatment of the NEH. A prominent cluster of these societies has filed a lawsuit.
In addition to these efforts, we need to articulate and explain to the broader public in concrete and accessible ways the value of the humanities in higher education and for civic improvement. We must recognize that advocating for the humanities entails advocating for all branches of research and education, including the sciences — and vice versa. And we must ensure that federal advocacy for advancing academic research and education persists.
If we fail to take these steps, defunding the NEH threatens not just the humanities but portends the demise of the “wisdom and vision” that American democracy demands in its citizens.
Gene Andrew Jarrett is dean of the faculty and the William S. Tod Professor of English at Princeton University. His views as expressed here are not necessarily those of any employer or other institution.
