
This Santa Fe arts college could lose almost all its federal funding. Here's why.
The Santa Fe-based art school, which serves over 1,000 students and has a staff of over 100 people, 79% and 42% of whom are Native American, respectively, could lose some $13.4 million in federal funding of its overall budget of roughly $17 million.
On Tuesday, ProPublica reported that the Trump administration, via a budget request on its way to Congress from the Department of the Interior, was looking to cut 90% of funding for the 37 tribal colleges and universities across the country — one of which is IAIA.
The cuts are part of a broader Trump Administration push to cut programs targeted at diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and other programs the administration deems wasteful, such as foreign aid. The administration has touted some $2.3 billion in savings from DEI cuts and $8.3 billion in savings annually that went to some of the poorest nations in the world.
"We will terminate every diversity, equity, and inclusion program across the entire federal government," Trump said in an executive order promising to eliminate every government program helping "underrepresented" populations in the U.S.
U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who is an ex officio non-voting member on the IAIA board of trustees, did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
IAIA President Robert Martin said in a phone interview Wednesday that they had been bracing for the cuts.
"We knew it was going to happen sometime but to tell you the truth, we were hoping that somehow we were going to remain in the budget," he told the Journal. "We were trying to make sure this didn't happen, but it has happened, and we're well-prepared to deal with it, and we're confident that we're going to prevail in the end."
Martin expressed confidence that the school would remain funded through the coming fiscal year, stating that he's been reassured by the New Mexico congressional delegation that "they are going to fund us at the level of funding that we requested" and that the presidential administration's proposed cuts could meet legal challenges. Still, Martin acknowledged that the looming cuts could have an impact on the campus community.
"It is scary, but I think they want to instill fear, and these are challenging times for all of us," Martin said. "Uncertainty creates a lot of stress and anxiety among our faculty, staff and students."
The Bureau of Indian Education Central Office, a department housed within the Department of the Interior, did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
"We know federal funding cuts have already hit New Mexico's higher education institutions. Currently, the New Mexico Higher Education Department is working closely with all public colleges and universities throughout the state, including the state's four tribal colleges, to track changes that may impact current and future federal funding," Auriella Ortiz, spokesperson for the New Mexico Higher Education Department, wrote in a statement. "During these unpredictable times, we will continue to support students at the Institute of American Indian Arts and other tribal colleges across the state."
In March, Martin penned a campus-wide letter ahead of spring break addressing federal concerns and wrote "During my more than 17-year tenure as President, IAIA's budget has been reduced only once." He also noted additional reasons for students and staff to remain optimistic and pointed to some actions the school was taking to mitigate federal effects.
"We have drawn down the maximum allowable funding amounts for each of our federal grants. Given the intent of several of the Executive Orders to terminate federal workers and programs, freeze federal hiring, reduce federal funding, and pausing certain federal grants," Martin wrote. "We must remain vigilant."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
9 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A brief history of Trump pretending not to know things
Less than a week after the Justice Department took the highly unusual step of sending Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general and Trump's former personal lawyer, to interview Maxwell for more than nine hours over two days, she was quietly moved from a federal minimum-security prison in Florida to a less-restrictive facility in Texas. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But according to Trump, that decision was news to him. Advertisement Perhaps the president really has no clue as to what's happening in his administration. But Trump's pleas of ignorance are an escape hatch he has deployed for years. Here's a brief history of notable moments in Trump's performative ignorance. The David Duke endorsement (2016): After Trump launched his first presidential campaign by excoriating Mexican immigrants and later promising to enact a Advertisement James Comey's firing (2017): Months into his first term, Trump dumped James Comey as FBI director. At the time, White House officials claimed that Trump fired Comey solely on the recommendation of deputy attorney general Hush money paid to Stormy Daniels (2018): Trump Advertisement Project 2025 (2024): At a Heritage Foundation event in 2022, Trump said the conservative group 'would lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.' Two years later, Trump Trump seems to treat ignorance — saying 'I don't know' or 'I didn't know'— as evidence of his innocence. He's testing that theory again as his self-inflicted Epstein scandal refuses to go away. But whether this tactic will allow him to dodge accountability this time, no one knows. Advertisement Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at


New York Times
10 minutes ago
- New York Times
In a Trump-Putin Summit, Ukraine Fears Losing Say Over Its Future
For nearly three years of the war in Ukraine, Washington's rallying cry in backing a fight against a Russian invasion was 'no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine.' But when President Trump meets President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Alaska on Friday, the Ukrainians will not be there, barring any last-minute invitation. And Kyiv's swift rejection of Mr. Trump's declaration to reporters that he is already negotiating with the Russian leadership over what he vaguely called 'land swaps,' with no mention of the security guarantees or arms supplies for Ukraine, underscores the enormous risks for the Ukrainians — and the political perils for Mr. Trump. Ukraine's fear for these past six months has been that Mr. Trump's image of a 'peace accord' is a deal struck directly between him and Mr. Putin — much as Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill divided up Europe at the Yalta conference in 1945. That meeting has become synonymous with historical debates over what can go wrong when great powers carve up the world, smaller powers suffer the consequences and free people find themselves cast under authoritarian rule. Mr. Zelensky himself invited such comparisons in a speech to his people hours after Mr. Trump raised the specter of deciding Ukraine's fate in a one-on-one meeting in Alaska, territory that was once part of the Russian empire. (While Mr. Putin has made clear that he regards Ukraine as rightful Russian territory dating back to the days of Peter the Great, the Russian leader has not called for the reversal of the $7.2 million sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867, during a period of financial distress for the empire.) 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier,' Mr. Zelensky said, noting that the Ukrainian constitution prohibits such a deal. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House weighs inviting Zelensky to Trump–Putin Alaska summit
The White House is reportedly weighing whether to invite Volodymyr Zelensky to join Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at their upcoming Alaska summit. Trump and Putin are set to hold high-stakes talks on Friday aimed at ending the war in Ukraine, with US officials said to be 'very hopeful' the Ukrainian president could also attend. A senior administration official told NBC News a three-way meeting remains 'absolutely' possible, while another official confirmed: 'It's being discussed.' However, no formal invitation has yet been extended to Kyiv. One senior White House source stressed: 'Right now, the White House is focusing on planning the bilateral meeting requested by President Putin.' Zelensky has insisted he must be included in any peace negotiations that directly affect his country, warning that any deal struck without Kyiv would be 'stillborn decisions against peace' and doomed to fail. 'Any decisions that are against us, any decisions that are without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace,' he said. 'They will not achieve anything.' His position has been echoed by European leaders including Sir Keir Starmer and the heads of France, Italy, Poland, Finland and the EU, who issued a joint statement warning there can be 'no peace without Ukraine.' 'We share the conviction that a diplomatic solution must protect Ukraine's and Europe's vital security interests,' it read. 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations. We are united as Europeans and determined to jointly promote our interests.' European officials have also proposed an alternative peace plan, The Wall Street Journal reports, amid speculation Washington and Moscow are considering a territorial 'swap' deal. Such an agreement would see each side give up territory, something Russia is expected to present as a victory. Zelensky has vowed never to concede Ukrainian land to Moscow, while Europe has argued territorial changes should only be permitted if Ukraine is given security guarantees — and if any Ukrainian withdrawal is matched by a Russian pullback. Moscow would also need to agree to a ceasefire before further steps. If it goes ahead, a potential trilateral meeting would be the first time Zelensky and Putin have met since the war began. The Ukrainian leader has long sought a face-to-face encounter with the Russian president to confront him over alleged atrocities, but Putin has signalled reluctance. 'I have nothing against it in general… But certain conditions must be created for this,' Putin recently said. 'Unfortunately, we are still far from creating such conditions.' Trump has dismissed suggestions that next week's summit hinges on Zelensky's attendance, telling reporters: 'No, he doesn't,' when asked if Putin would need to meet Zelensky in order to meet him. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said preparations are continuing for either a bilateral or trilateral meeting: 'The White House is working through the details of these potential meetings… details will be provided at the appropriate time.'