Why architects must confront the changing political landscape

The knee-jerk reaction to the rise of populism is often to dismiss it as a product of resentment or nostalgia. But to see it only in those terms is to overlook a deeper shift: a growing frustration with the perceived rigidity of mainstream liberal discourse, particularly on matters of social policy and environmental regulation.

Government legislation enforcing equity mandates and net zero targets may be deemed legitimate by some, but it has increasingly been framed as a moral absolute, leaving little room for counterarguments. Many people – across political lines – see this as a narrowing of intellectual space, where certain views are not simply debated but discouraged or deemed unacceptable.

Architects have aligned themselves with many of these orthodoxies, whereby any deviation from the accepted line is met with swift condemnation. This is not a uniquely architectural problem; it reflects a broader cultural climate in which dissent is often treated as a challenge to the prevailing – and only legitimate – discourse.

For much of the 20th century, both the political left and right shared a fundamental belief in economic and social progress. Today, that consensus is breaking down

At its most extreme, this mindset is embodied by concepts such as degrowth, which challenge one of the central ambitions of modern society: the improvement of material betterment. For much of the 20th century, both the political left and right shared a fundamental belief in economic and social progress. Today, that consensus is breaking down.

While concerns about environmental impact are valid, the idea that economic growth itself is the problem is a radical departure from the idea that architecture – and society more broadly – should be about creating more opportunities, not fewer.

This is the context in which the latest wave of populism, from Donald Trump to Giorgia Meloni, is gaining traction. It is not just a rejection of so-called progressive policies but a reaction against a culture that many perceive as restrictive, censorious and dismissive of dissent, or even questioning the established truths. Whether architects agree with this shift or not, it is happening – and it has profound implications for the profession.

Just weeks into his presidency, Trump’s return to office has already reinforced the deep cultural and political divides that have defined recent years. One of his first executive actions was to reinstate Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture, a directive that mandates civic buildings should “respect regional, traditional and classical architectural heritage in order to uplift and beautify public spaces and ennoble the United States”.

The immediate reaction was an “I told you so” from the creative classes. The accepted opinion was that this single document represented the reawakening of “the next global dictatorship”.

Within no time at all, there was yet another flurry of articles identifying “echoes of fascist architecture” and memes of Nazi rallies amid Corinthian columns. Classical stylisation is not to everyone’s taste – but grow up.

These reactions overlook a crucial point – the populist turn in the US or across Europe, has been electorally successful. Trump won more votes than any Republican in history. Giorgia Meloni’s victory in Italy and recent support for Reform in the UK show that these shifts are not fringe rebellions but expressions of legitimate democratic discontent.

Dismissing them as mere reactionary outbursts ignores the fundamental question: why have so many voters abandoned traditional parties in favour of populist alternatives?

>> Also read: Trump’s return: US architects brace for challenges over the next four years

>> Also read: Architecture and the ethics of harm: design, responsibility, and the cost of inaction

Arguably, history suggests that the greatest risk is not populism itself but the failure to engage with the grievances that drive it. The Democratic Party under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, for instance, was widely seen as detached from the economic, political and cultural concerns of its traditional blue-collar supporters. Their perceived preoccupation with elite liberal sensibilities alienated many working-class voters, leaving a vacuum that Trump was able to exploit.

Similarly, in Europe, mainstream parties have often struggled to acknowledge how their policies – on everything from urban regeneration to climate targets – might be perceived as imposing costs on ordinary people while being championed by professional elites insulated from their effects.

Trump’s presidency – for all its excesses – represents a shift that cannot simply be dismissed. However uncomfortable it may be for his opponents, his democratic mandate and the broader populist turn signal a growing dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Whether one sees this shift as a necessary course correction or a dangerous regression, it is clear that dismissing these forces outright – as much of the architectural profession is prone to do – risks widening the gulf between architects and the societies they serve.

At the same time, there are real concerns about the erosion of liberal values – but not always from the quarters that many assume. JD Vance’s recent humiliation of President Zelensky in the White House was reprehensible, but his speech at the Munich Security Conference last month raised a crucial issue of the increasingly restrictive approach to free speech in western democracies.

His remarks, which criticised EU policies on online regulation and free speech, were swiftly condemned – ironically reinforcing his point. Too often, the instinctive response to uncomfortable speech is not to debate it but to shut it down. The principle of open discourse, once central to liberal democracy, is now treated with suspicion.

This is not just political theatre – it reflects a growing disillusionment with the bureaucratisation of social policy

Nowhere has this shift been more evident than in the expansion of EDI (equality, diversity, and inclusion) policies, which, while well-intentioned, have created their own rigid orthodoxies. Trump’s recent executive orders attacking EDI mandates in federal contracting – framed as a return to “merit-based opportunity” – have had far-reaching consequences.

Major corporations, from ArcelorMittal to JPMorgan and Mercedes-Benz, are now withdrawing from ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) commitments. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has exited the industry’s net zero climate coalition, while firms including Goldman Sachs, Google and Amtrak have scaled back their EDI initiatives.

This is not just political theatre – it reflects a growing disillusionment with the bureaucratisation of social policy and the unintended consequences of well-meaning interventions.

Architecture, too, has become entangled in these debates. I have just finished editing a pamphlet on the topic and the Trump administration’s dismantling of the EDI industry is an opportunity for us to reassess its regressive impact on our industry.

The profession, once defined by intellectual openness and radical experimentation, is increasingly governed by a set of social-policy concerns that leave little room for dissent. Environmental and social responsibility are legitimate considerations for debate – but when architecture becomes primarily a tool of ideological enforcement rather than creative inquiry, something is lost.

As a result, too many architects, architectural commentators and educators have become detached from the wider public, and ignorant of real-world needs.

US architect Adam N Mayer says: “The architecture profession is prone to what some call ‘progressive politics’ or what other observers might call ‘do-gooder syndrome’.” That do-gooding – exemplified by EDI mandates and training programmes - which many architects think is a radical intervention in local community organisation or society more widely, is often “not doing good” at all.

Just as the Trades Union Congress has adopted mandatory EDI training programmes that, in my opinion, align them more closely with employers in regulating workplace behaviour – potentially at the expense of representing individual members – similar dynamics are emerging in architecture. The Architects Registration Board’s new code of conduct for registered architects, along with its updated accreditation criteria for schools of architecture could potentially disbar architects and invalidate courses found to be in contravention of its EDI tickbox policies.

Embedded in increasingly politicised codes of conduct, EDI policies have become a rigid, bureaucratic framework that frequently does more harm than good.

In higher education, EDI offices have expanded their influence beyond simply ensuring fair treatment, increasingly operating as ideological enforcers, promoting certain viewpoints while stifling others. Instead of fostering genuine inclusion, these initiatives have created a climate of intolerance, where disagreement is treated as defiance and professionals are pressured into compliance with an ever-narrowing set of approved ideas.

In his inimitable style, Patrik Schumacher points out that architecture is disconnected from the real world

Ironically, some evidence suggests that EDI has also been remarkably ineffective at achieving its stated aims. Studies have shown that mandatory diversity training, often a cornerstone of corporate EDI strategies, not only fails to reduce bias but can actually increase it, as employees react against being coerced into conformity.

Performance rating systems, grievance procedures and hiring quotas – common EDI tools – have similarly been found to backfire, reducing diversity in management rather than increasing it. This is because these top-down, punitive approaches do not encourage genuine cultural change; instead, they create resentment, encourage box-ticking, reinforce divisions and pressurise people to keep their heads down.

>> Also read: Inclusion Emergency: ‘An emergency that we can no longer afford to ignore’

>> Also read: Why building inclusion should be seen as a professional obligation

The problem is compounded by the sheer scale of investment in EDI roles – public sector organisations now spend hundreds of millions annually on diversity departments and consultants. What could have been a conversation about professional development has been hijacked by a system that rewards ideological adherence over practical outcomes.

If architecture is to remain a profession rooted in critical thought, creativity and a genuine engagement with the world, it must kick back against the EDI army that has replaced open inquiry with dogma.

It won’t be easy because, over the years, architects have transformed themselves from radical outsiders to cosy insiders. Nowadays, their remit is governed by social policy concerns, from environmentalism to cycling and community cohesion. Ironically, they like to believe that they are open-minded and have a finger on the pulse of the public mood, but time and time again, they have been revealed as tin-eared to public concerns.

From Brexit to the Green New Deal, from insisting on “the right values” to advocating for bamboo, rammed earth and heat pumps, architects have arguably misread or misrepresented the mood of large swathes of the country. In his inimitable style, Patrik Schumacher points out that architecture is disconnected from the real world, decrying an “increasingly incestuous academic culture of dilettante distraction”.

Of course, architects have to navigate a strained relationship with the public: wanting to represent their desires and yet hoping to educate them about better possibilities – to provide solutions that clients didn’t know were possible.

In practical and professional matters, architects can certainly offer creative solutions. But, in a society where the public is worried about paying the bills, walking on eggshells for fear of causing offence, where free expression is constrained by politicised codes of conduct, and where risk-aversion dominates, no wonder ordinary people are less enamoured by what restrictive practices architects have to offer.

We have to keep a watchful eye on the American administration and condemn its illiberal excesses, but if a knock-on effect of Trump’s actions can challenge the EDI status quo, then he deserves two cheers. Architects might then begin to appreciate the potential of their profession as a liberal, rather than a patronising, intolerant and restrictive art.

>> Also read: ‘It’s the end of architecture’ – Patrik Schumacher declares war on woke culture

>> Also read: Are the culture wars distracting us from architecture’s real challenges?