Federal Funding for Libraries and Museums on the Chopping Block

In the chaos generated by President Trump’s order this month to close the U.S. Department of Education, many may have missed news about another agency that supports public education—the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). In a March 14 executive order, President Trump called for its elimination “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.”

IMLS is the largest source of federal funding for libraries and provides a financial lifeline to scores of museums across the country. Its $304 million budget represents less than .01 percent of the federal budget, but its range is wide, stretching across hundreds of communities in the United States. In fiscal year 2024, it was responsible for distributing more than $280 million in grants to libraries and museums. Eliminating these programs would mean cutting off access to electronic databases that students use for homework and test prep. It would reduce funding for book mobiles, library services for the blind, summer reading programs, and high-speed internet access particularly in rural areas. It could lead museums to cut their hours and libraries to end their digital literacy programs for all community members.

The Trump Administration attempted to zero out funding for IMLS in 2017, 2018, and 2019, but Congress ignored the request and continued funding it.

With the March 14 executive order, Trump is taking a different route, doing what he can without Congress. And yet the order he signed explicitly recognizes that the laws approved by Congress still hold sway: The phrase “applicable with law” is peppered throughout the order.

IMLS was established by the Museum and Library Services Act (MLSA) of 1996, which includes the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) and the Museum Services Act (MSA), and reauthorized in 2018. (Ironically Trump himself signed the reauthorized bill into law.) According to the IMLS’s most recent budget justification submitted to Congress in March 2024, almost all of the agency’s request for $280 million for grant funding was dedicated to programs authorized by the 2018 law. (See more in IMLS’s legislation page which lists all the laws that have formed the basis for its work.)

The National Museum and Library Services board, which is also required by law, issued a letter this week explaining which of IMLS’s programs “cannot be paused, reduced, or eliminated without violating Congressional intent and federal statute.” The list in the letter includes nearly all IMLS programs. An analysis by EveryLibrary.org also parses the language of these laws to determine which programs are written in legislation with the words “shall” (as in, the institute “shall” administer them—a must-do) and which ones are described as programs the institute “may” provide.

Both documents make the broader point that IMLS’s programs were clearly authorized by Congress; legislators, well aware of what their constituents need back home, voted for IMLS to do the work it is doing.

Still, advocates know not to dismiss the executive order as an empty threat. Given Trump’s earlier attempts to zero out funding for this agency, and given that the Department of Government Efficiency has already dismantled agencies and terminated contracts without regard for the law, librarians and museum educators are bracing for the Trump administration to attempt to gut IMLS anyway.

This week advocates have been mobilizing, issuing statements condemning Trump’s order and beseeching library and museum lovers to voice their concerns about what would be lost without federal funding. EveryLibrary.org promoted a petition and issued a statement of concern that the wording of this executive order could “result in cuts to the core functions of IMLS.” The American Library Association issued a public letter calling on the acting director to not cut programs required by law and launched a public advocacy campaign. The Chief Officers of State Library Agencies called out the potential impact, stating it would be “difficult for our nation's state libraries to successfully advance their missions” without IMLS funding. State-level groups, such as the Michigan Museums Association, are asking patrons to contact their members of Congress.

In addition, several organizations are tapping legal experts to prepare lawsuits. And advocates are looking farther ahead to opportunities this year for lawmakers to enact legislation that gives them more security. The Museum and Library Services Act is due for reauthorization and Congress could pass even stronger language to ensure that its will is followed.

Keith Sonderling, the recently sworn-in deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, is now the acting director of IMLS, taking on two jobs at one time. All eyes are on him as his staff members—and library and museum leaders around the country—await a plan he and other agency heads are required to submit for laying off a significant percentage of their employees.

As Sonderling said in a statement after his swearing in, he will “revitalize” what he sees as an “important organization in its mission to advance, support, and empower America’s museums and libraries, which stand as cornerstones of learning and culture in our society.”

At the same time, Sonderling said he will march “in lockstep with this Administration to enhance efficiency and foster innovation.”

He is now faced with a tough contradiction to resolve. Does he really work to revitalize the agency or does he do the bidding of an administration that doesn’t want this agency to exist at all?

On Monday, workers at IMLS expected to receive emails telling them they have been laid off. It is now Wednesday and nothing has come yet. They continue to work, contacting grantees to keep their projects moving and put together panels of reviewers for incoming proposals, but the tension is palpable.

Many people who regularly use libraries and visit museums have probably never heard of IMLS. That’s partly by design—some of the biggest grants from IMLS move through state-level library systems and, based on parameters set by law, local and state leaders decide how the funding is used. But that doesn’t mean that people on the ground won’t feel the effects of cuts. They will.

It depends on the state, but consider Michigan, where funds from IMLS’s Grants to States program are paying for its digital library of test prep resources to help anyone with a Michigan library card get ready for college admissions or military core skills tests. High school students rely on that library. Funds from IMLS also pay for interlibrary loan services, a necessity in the state’s less populated rural areas. Broadband connectivity programs around the country are also at risk. More than 50 percent of state libraries have submitted plans to IMLS to fund those programs, and some, such as North Carolina, are working specifically on issues related to the homework gap, according to IMLS’s broadband report. Literacy and lifelong learning programs are also popular uses of IMLS funds, according to a search of awarded grants and state’s plans, including those submitted by Florida (awarded $9.5 million in 2024), Tennessee ($3.7 million), Kentucky ($2.7 million), and many more.

Compared to other federal programs, these are small dollars. But in many tax-poor states, and across lower-income communities and small towns, even small grants are a significant resource for keeping doors open and community programs going.

The institute also runs the “Inspire!” program for small museums, the Museums for America program, and leadership programs for museum directors. Uses of the funds range from helping to build AI literacy exhibits at the Exploratorium to enabling teenagers to take field trips to the Art Museum of Eastern Idaho.

The fate of programs like these is now uncertain, and the statement from acting director Sonderling after his swearing in—in which he said he would “restore focus on patriotism” and “American exceptionalism”—has raised concern among some museum educators. It remains to be seen if funding would be contingent on exhibits meeting a litmus test of adhering to a specific political viewpoint.

The IMLS also enables efficiency and cost savings at the state and local levels. Take, for example, the case of electronic databases, such as the test-prep digital library in Michigan named above. IMLS helps pay the cost of licenses for access to databases students around the state can use. Funding the databases at the state level saves money, since it would be very costly for each locality to pay for their own databases and recreate the wheel in each county or town. With guidance and funding from IMLS, state libraries can provide those databases for everyone in the state; all can benefit at much lower cost.

Efficiency also comes from the professional development projects that IMLS funds across states. These help leaders in libraries and museums stay up to date on cutting-edge technology issues, such as the recent National Forum on Privacy Literacy Standards.

It’s hard to quantify the damage done if and when knowledgeable staff members at IMLS are let go. There is a small team at this agency (just three people work on the Grants to States program; fewer than 75 people currently comprise the institute’s staff) and they provide technical assistance and other guidance to state library and museum leaders, drawing on decades of knowledge and expertise. How backward it would be to make things even less efficient for states by throwing away that expertise, leaving no one to gather data and share information on what works best to support families and students around the country.

For more on the implications of cuts to public education, including the executive order calling for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, see New America's ongoing series of commentary as well as explanatory and investigative articles.