Op-Ed 2025

The U.S. Pavilion at Venice 2026 is in Jeopardy
By Johnny Otto



For nearly a century the Venice Biennale has been the world’s stage for contemporary art and cultural diplomacy. The U.S. Pavilion has long stood as a platform for American artists to project a diverse and dynamic vision of the nation. Yet as preparations for the 2026 Biennale unfold, that legacy appears to be in jeopardy. The United States is running dangerously late in organizing its pavilion, and the new guidelines issued by the State Department represent a sharp ideological turn that could reshape the role of art in international diplomacy.



The most immediate concern is timing. Normally the U.S. begins planning its pavilion years in advance. Proposals are solicited, juries convene, curators and artists work through complex logistics, and fund-raising supplements the limited federal support. This process typically takes eighteen to twenty-four months. For 2026, however, the call for proposals did not go out until mid-2025. That gives whoever is selected only about a year to mount one of the most visible and competitive exhibitions in the world. Experienced curators warn that the delay is not simply inconvenient but potentially fatal to serious participation. Without adequate time, the U.S. risks presenting a rushed and underdeveloped pavilion, or worse, failing to present one at all. The second concern is ideological. Past calls for proposals included language about diversity, equity, and inclusion, reflecting both the reality of American society and the importance of representing its multiplicity on the world stage. That language has now been removed. In its place, applicants are instructed to create proposals that “promote American values” and align with U.S. foreign policy goals. Such wording begs the question: whose values, and defined by whom? The United States has never been a monolith. Its culture is shaped by contradictions and tensions as much as by shared ideals. To mandate a single, state-approved definition of American values reduces the complexity of the nation to a political slogan.



The stakes are not limited to art institutions. The Biennale has always been about more than aesthetics. It is a theater of soft power where nations present their identity and aspirations. When the Soviet Union sent monumental socialist realist works, when Germany reimagined its pavilion after the Second World War, when African nations began asserting their independence through art, each act was a statement of national character and ambition. For the United States to shrink its pavilion into a narrowly ideological showcase would signal to the world that it has abandoned the open pluralism that once defined its cultural diplomacy.



There is also the risk of outright politicisation. Proposals already circulating in the press range from a Trump-themed exhibition by Andres Serrano to provocations by Curtis Yarvin that envision a “Salon des Deplorables.” Whether these ever come to fruition or not, the fact that they dominate the conversation illustrates how fragile the pavilion has become. Instead of amplifying the creative voices of American artists, the pavilion may become a stage for partisan spectacle. If that happens, the United States will not simply lose credibility in the art world. It will also compromise its ability to use culture as a bridge in international relations. The deeper issue is how this reflects the current direction of arts policy in the United States. Institutions have been weakened by budget cuts, advisory boards remain under-staffed, and the timeline for major cultural projects has been eroded by political interference. The Venice Biennale is the most visible symptom of this shift, but it is not the only one. When culture is treated as a pawn in ideological battles, artists lose autonomy, institutions lose independence, and the nation loses its cultural voice.



This moment demands reflection and urgency. If the United States fails to present a meaningful pavilion in 2026, it will not be remembered as a scheduling mishap but as a deliberate retreat from cultural leadership. If it presents a pavilion that functions as little more than political propaganda, the consequences will be worse. America will be seen as hollowing out its own creative vitality in favor of partisan messaging. The path forward is not complicated. Restore the independence of the curatorial process. Ensure that decisions are made by those with expertise in art rather than by political appointees. Provide institutions with the resources and the time they need to create exhibitions of substance. Above all, respect the diversity of American artistic voices, which is itself the truest expression of American values.



What happens in Venice may seem distant from the concerns of everyday citizens, but it matters. Culture is one of the few forms of diplomacy that can transcend conflict, language, and ideology. When American artists are allowed to speak freely, they remind the world of the creativity, complexity, and contradictions that define the nation. When their voices are narrowed by ideology, the world sees only propaganda. In a time of global upheaval, the choice between art and ideology has rarely been more stark.



Would you like me to also give this piece a shorter, punchier version (op-ed length for a newspaper, ~600 words), or keep it as this more expanded, magazine-style commentary?