344
Trump fires federal arts board in charge of reviewing White House ballroom and ‘Arc de Trump’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
344 points (99.7% liked)
politics
26307 readers
4037 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Did the Commission of Fine Arts deliver anything of non-subjective value?
They clearly were fired for critical opinions about the 2 vanity projects. If their expert opinions were used to help win lawsuits to prevent them from happening it’d be hundreds of millions of dollars saved.
Anyway all value is subjective, even dollars. If you are trying to say fine arts are not worth it then dont be a coward, come out and say it instead of trying to imply it by “just asking questions” Mr Tucker.
Social workers, engineers, & scientists deliver value beyond subjective opinion. Fine arts mostly seem like refined subjectivity & a racket for the ultra wealthy to store wealth. Why don't you answer the actual question instead of cranking out hostility?
I don't see how what appear to be glorified art critics sponsored by the government have any bearing on lawsuits. Is there a justification in terms of tangible benefit for such a government commission?
Ok I’ll take back coward since you came out and said it. I don’t want to hash out the value of government funding the arts here as others have written elsewhere on both sides of the subject more persuasively than either of us will do justice here. Suffice to say we likely differ in opinion.
I’ll research and give you an honest answer to your question if you first answer this: Why do you think Trump fired them?
That wasn't the question. If you don't want to answer real questions, then don't.
You seem to want to pressure everyone to defensively preface their questions with "my opinions of Trump notwithstanding" just so thought-policing maligners like you don't come at us with their hostile assumptions: it's tiring & we need to oppose its normalization. We ought to be able to just pose the goddamn question, which I'm doing.
Instead of directly saying what you meant you posed what you thought was a gotcha question. You had an opinion to share which was this:
If you’ll allow me to extrapolate, and please correct me if this is wrong, your position boils down to: “good riddance they’re a waste of public spending anyway.”
Which fails to recognize Trump didn’t get rid of the commission, he just fired the 6 members. Theyll be replaced with sycophants and continue to spend whatever money they were before.
Again I’ll research and give you an honest answer to your initial question, but I want you to answer mine because I suspect you’re posting in bad faith and were just trying to hide your opinion (which again if you’re saying they’re a waste of spending they are not being cut just replaced). Why do you think they were fired?
I directly said it: the question.
Justifying the existence of the government commission in terms of a tangible benefit to the public would dispel doubts that it is worth keeping.
I was aware. In the case that its existence lacks much justification, that would make an argument that Trump's mistake was not going far enough to just end the commission altogether. We shouldn't have to state our inner thoughts or explain ourselves to pose a question.
A point of the question is that disapproving of bullshit firings is not enough to justify a government commission. We can disapprove of corruption & still find the commission unworthy. A separate justification would explain why it's absolutely worth fighting for & that would make a more compelling reason to oppose Trump over it.
The problem is you think you're psychic. I think we need to oppose the normalization of hostility by malign speculators attempting to suss out "bad faith".
I would also suggest you look at where we are. Having to remind everyone we oppose Trump where the overwhelming sentiment opposes Trump is absurdly needy & exhausting. I've noticed lack of push back against that pernicious tendency, which I think is long overdue.
No one was talking about axing the commission until you showed up. It is not obvious to me from your question the point was about justifying the existence of the commission in a thread about about the firing of the heads of the commission because they had negative review of the 2 vanity projects because sacking the heads does not change its funding status.
You certainly don't have to but then it forces others to fave to read into your thoughts to respond. You say I think I'm psychic but it only comes across that way when you're not sharing what your thoughts are or explaining. We've moved past that because you've laid out what your thoughts were. Since you have I don't think it really matters where you stand on the reason for the firings because it seems you're saying the firing is justified because the commission doesn't yield objective value (while at the same time acknowledging the firing has no impact on the commissions spending).
Anyway I did some research, here's a response to your initial question:
The CFA mandate is rooted in the understanding that architecture and urban design are matters of public interest, not just subjective taste. You asked for something non-subjective? The buildings are physical objects standing right there in DC, what is more objective and concrete than actual concrete?
Edit - to be fair I did see spending that seems low valued and pretty loosely aligned to their mandate. $400 million for 2024 for these recipients seems pretty steep. But to say there's no value in the CFA goes too far and funding of the CFA is a different topic entirely that what is focused on by the OP article which is about Trump firing what is supposed to be an independent organization because he didn't like their report. The government benefits from independent, non-political groups to ground itself in reality and the inference to be gained from the article is that Trump is bulldozing that concept.