From one executive order to the next, Donald Trump’s presidency has shaken the world. Now, it has shaken the art world.

In mid-February, the White House announced the plan to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). In addition, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Legal Services Corporation and AmeriCorps, among other programs, may also be cut. Unlike the trillions of dollars spent on war, most of these programs cost under $500 million annually, according to a Feb. 17 New York Times article.

Eliminating the NEA and the NEH is a blow to museums such as the Museum of Fine Arts, the Institute of Contemporary Art and the Metropolitan Museum of Art that rely on federal funding to plan exhibitions. Directors of museums expressed this concern in an open letter on Feb. 24. In this letter, the directors describe themselves as the “stewards of public trust.” These museums utilize NEA and NEH funding for not only their exhibits but also for programs of public access, teaching and scholarship opportunities.

In light of the discussion that these directors have started, the conversation on the importance of arts and humanities must be carried on. Therefore, addressing the importance of the humanities and the arts is vital. In the directors’ letter, they state that the NEA and NEH funding has been critical in supporting the digitization and cataloging of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum’s singular collection; thus, the NEA and NEH make the museum’s art more accessible and allow the public to interact with art that they otherwise may not have had the opportunity to appreciate.

The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, has received “acquisition funds for works of art by American artists of color in The Heritage Fund for a Diverse Collection,” as well as for the “forthcoming exhibition Animal-Shaped Vessels from the Ancient World: Feasting with Gods, Heroes, and Kings at the Harvard Art Museums,” according to the open letter.

These exhibitions serve as a way to educate the public about different cultures and perspectives. Not only that, but the unique nature of each exhibit attracts more visitors to the museum, where the public can engage with new forms of art. Without the government’s funding, these events are not possible. Museums, in this case, would have to seek more donations, but that would not be enough.

Further, donations often come with strings attached, which makes museums dependent on their donor’s wishes, according to a Feb. 4, 2013 New York Times article. This means that if museums wish to sell, buy or loan art, they must first adhere to the donor’s wishes.

Government funding has also provided “transformative art education programs for Boston Public Schools middle and high school students at the ICA,” according to the same open letter.

Each of these federally funded programs is crucial in promoting the arts and the humanities. They not only inspire future generations to pursue these fields but also support learning of different cultures through exhibitions from around the world. Studying other cultures is the point of the arts and the humanities, and it provides new knowledge and a better awareness of the world.

Additionally, students learn to think critically and express their talents with art. Art in museums stimulates thought when viewed. This makes museums a base to both find and discover new ways of expression and ideas.

At a time when Kentucky governor Matt Bevin suggested that French literature majors should not receive any state funding, according to a Feb. 21 New York Times article, it is more important than ever to support the humanities and arts.The governor suggested this as a means to support the economy through the production of skilled workers in science and technology. Nevertheless, if one is concerned with the humanities’ lack of impact on science and technology, then refer to the following statement by Apple’s founder Steve Jobs: “It is in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough. It’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields the results that make our hearts sing,” Jobs said, according to a March 16, 2015 article in the Conversation.

The humanities and the arts are an exercise in thought. There were days when scientists were considered natural philosophers, according to a Sept. 8, 2012 article in the Guardian. Why? Science is as much a field of thought as it is of experimentation — quality that the humanities and the arts promote. Without one or the other, there will be no progress.

The discussion of science, technology, engineering and math when discussing the cut in federal funding and the letter from the directors is important. These topics are intertwined. Cutting NEA and NEH funding signals Trump’s intent on focusing directly on the economy by focusing on STEM as well other avenues of spending.

Despite Trump’s belief, there is significant value in the humanities and the arts. Humanities are a combination of disciplines to study human culture. The arts are similar but with a focus on studying the expression of culture. According to a Nov. 13, 2014 Times Higher Education article, in the words of world-renowned scientist E.O. Wilson, humanities are “the natural history of culture and our most private and precious heritage.”

Depriving people of studying the humanities and the arts prevents the learning of human culture. The humanities and the arts are a way to reflect on human achievements and failures and learn from them. They encourage questioning, resistance — through art — and advancement.

Now, returning to the issue at hand, cutting NEA and NEH funding would deprive museums of the chance to showcase these advancements. The NEA was founded to promote the arts, allocate funding and minimize costs of insuring art,accordingto a Feb. 22 New York Times opinion piece.The same is true for the NEH in promoting the humanities, according to the NEH website.

The point about insuring art is particularly important. The director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art says that the NEA makes exhibitions happen because it covers a “whopping $2.4 billion” insurance valuation, according to a Feb. 2 New York Times article. Without federal funding, museums would not be able to insure art, preventing the public from engaging with arts from around the world because the liability may be deemed too great without insurance.

Without federal funding, it is difficult for museums to curate exhibitions. This thereby deprives people of an opportunity to learn, study and appreciate art. In a world that is increasingly divided over immigration and nationalism, the inclusive nature of art is important.

As the museum directors wrote, “Art is, at its best, a dialogue. We hope that you’ll participate in the conversation about the importance of federal funding for the arts and join us as stewards of the public good.”