SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

Colleagues,

A significant development at the federal level deserves SRRT's close attention. ProPublica reports that the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the sole federal agency dedicated to supporting libraries and a primary funder of museums and archives, has issued 2026 grant guidelines that explicitly "welcome" projects aligned with President Trump's stated vision for America. This marks a sharp departure from the agency's historically nonpartisan, merit-based framework.

The new funding notices reference several executive orders, including one attacking the Smithsonian for promoting what it calls a "divisive, race-centered ideology," another addressing alleged "anti-Christian bias," and one on federal architecture. Applicants are encouraged to foster appreciation for the nation through "uplifting and positive narratives," language that signals a preference for particular interpretive frameworks in the presentation of American history and culture. Former IMLS leaders from both parties describe the shift as unprecedented in its explicit political framing. Concerns center not simply on changing priorities, which occur under every administration, but on the insertion of presidential ideology into grant criteria.

This development does not occur in isolation. Last year, the administration attempted to dismantle IMLS by executive order, fired its director, placed most staff on administrative leave, rescinded previously awarded grants, and dismissed the board. Those actions were halted by court intervention following lawsuits brought by 21 state attorneys general and the American Library Association. Grants were reinstated under court order. Now, with a significantly reduced budget and a reported request for only 13 full-time employees, the agency is moving forward with approximately $78 million in awards across 13 programs. Questions remain about staffing capacity, peer review transparency, and procedural safeguards.

Former agency directors and leaders of the American Historical Association, the American Library Association, and the American Alliance of Museums warn that the new language may function as a signaling mechanism: applicants may feel pressure to tailor proposals toward state-endorsed narratives in order to remain competitive. The issue is not whether institutions can present patriotic themes; libraries and museums have long done so. The issue is whether federal funding is being conditioned-implicitly or explicitly-on alignment with a particular political worldview. Legal scholars cited in the article raise First Amendment concerns, arguing that the use of funding to incentivize specific historical interpretations approaches viewpoint-based coercion.

There are practical implications as well. Institutions are asking whether accepting funds could expose them to heightened scrutiny, audits of exhibit "tone" or "alignment with American ideals," or retroactive revocation of grants. The Smithsonian has already been subjected to a review of exhibition framing. Universities have faced investigations tied to DEI policies. In this environment, grant acceptance may be perceived as ideological compliance, placing cultural institutions in a double bind: decline federal funds and lose critical support for community services, or accept them and risk reputational or operational vulnerability.

For SRRT and ALA as a whole, the stakes are clear. IMLS funding supports broadband access in rural libraries, workforce development, digitization of archival materials, recruitment and training of library professionals, disaster preparedness, and community programming. These are core public goods. If grant criteria begin to shape not just programmatic outcomes but interpretive content, the independence that underwrites public trust in libraries and museums is at risk. National opinion surveys consistently show these institutions among the most trusted in American life precisely because they are perceived as professionally grounded rather than politically directed.

This moment calls for careful analysis and principled response. The central question is whether federal cultural funding will remain content-neutral and professionally administered, or whether it will become an instrument for advancing a particular historical narrative. Whatever one's political orientation, the precedent of attaching ideological conditions to library and museum grants has long-term implications for intellectual freedom, professional autonomy, and the civic role of our institutions.

SRRT has historically taken seriously the relationship between state power, information institutions, and democratic culture. The developments at IMLS warrant discussion within our round table and, potentially, coordinated response with allied organizations. The integrity of peer review, transparency in criteria, protection against viewpoint discrimination, and defense of institutional independence are not abstract principles. They are the conditions under which libraries and museums can serve the full public without fear or favor.

I encourage members to read the ProPublica investigation closely and to consider how SRRT should engage this issue at both the policy and public levels.

https://www.propublica.org/article/institute-of-museum-and-library-services-grant-guidelines-donald-trump

Mark R.

• It's worth noting that the federal injunction does not necessarily bar the current administration from pursuing the same goal through a different route or mechanism. Something many people seem to miss is that all the litigation against the administration (and the 45th POTUS, individually) - win or lose - achieves one particular thing: teaching the administration what wins and what to sidestep to get closer to a win. The judicial opinions written to rationalize the rulings become guidebooks for the maliciously determined, not just precedents for future litigants. Ergo, one consideration should be the potential for further attacks on the IMLS and the resulting chaos and instability.

• The examples of the Smithsonian audit and the university DEI shakedowns can reasonably be viewed as canaries in the coal mine. Given the parallels between the current arc and trajectory, it's worth taking some time to examine how this played out across Europe in the first half of the 20th century. We know that history is both cyclical and repetitive, so there are answers to be found in the last "cycle."

• While watching and loosely tracking similar efforts to dismantle or drastically reduce public media, NOAA, and other public services to the greater good, I've noticed a clear trend towards setting the stage for privatization. The "excuse" for this would be (hypothetical) bureaucratic and fiscal efficiency for the government. Therefore, it stands to reason that is likely at least part of the rationale for exerting downward pressure on the IMLS: if they find they can't eliminate it on their own, perhaps they can create agency elimination through attrition as a result of enacting policies that encourage ideological alignment in a generally non-partisan field, backed by the implied threat of audit, harassment, clawback, etc, for failure to align. If institutions push back by refusing to participate in the process under the new criteria, the IMLS could become an easily discarded line item in future budgets due to perceived lack of need or relevance. If institutions do so by participating in the process and refusing to align with the administration's ideology, they may place crosshairs on themselves, including the possibility of defunding, a ban on future eligibility, or worse, which ultimately achieves a similar result, just in a slower, more chaotic manner.

• I think it's worth noting social media commentaries comparing POTUS and administration tactics to classic shakedown/racketeering tactics used by major crime organizations. Without the tangential discussion of historical investigations, I don't think this similarity is a coincidence or a mistake. When considering that matter, juxtaposed with recent media stories surrounding ICE agents and alleged (unpleasant) details about their employment contracts, I think it makes sense to at least briefly examine things from the perspective of, "If I am funding a library or library project, would I be willing to accept funding from a criminal organization knowing that there was probably fine print, hidden strings, or future leverage involved?" [Clarification for legal purposes: I am NOT stating that the current administration or IMLS is a criminal organization. I am saying that the POTUS and the current administration appear to use a similar style of behaviour and operation. Therefore, the net outcomes of engaging with them may be similar.]

• It should not be understated or dismissed that the current administration is led by an individual who appears to display an astounding level of "malignant-type" narcissism. While I am not a licensed medical or mental health professional and therefore cannot offer any "diagnosis," I can say from lived experience with clinically-assessed NPD persons that there is almost a perfect 1:1 match in behaviours. This is important because it is a personality and behavioural style that - typically - will stop at nothing to achieve its goals and whims, no matter how chaotic or destructive. It responds to reputational, financial, and control losses. Its responses are deflection, projection, intimidation, coercion, destruction, and violence, even when it involves cutting off its own nose and spiting its face. We have already seen this played out over the last year in response to prior perceived "slights." Unfortunately, the past year was likely just the machine warming up. My experience with this type of behaviour and personality has been that, even when you "toe the line" and meet the specified expectations, the goalposts will change summarily and arbitrarily, creating constant instability and ongoing confusion/chaos. The "terms and conditions" are always what serve the personality best at any given moment, regardless of what those terms and conditions are in any normal capacity.

• If institutions decide to push back by declining to engage with the IMLS under the current application criteria, a few examples of hypothetical ways of addressing the funding issue could look like increasing - or shifting toward - reliance on:
  • State-level, county-level, and municipal-level funding and initiatives
  • Corporate or private enterprise sponsorship
  • Private philanthropies and foundations
  • Grass-roots community fundraising, provisioning, and volunteerism initiatives
  • Partnering with secondary and post-secondary academic and vocational training institutions to delegate certain projects that might serve as hands-on practicums for students

• I am not aware of the non-status quo options for institutions to push back while engaging with the IMLS under the current application criteria, so I cannot comment on them or make suggestions at this time. I can only say that if an institution decides it wants to "play ball" with the current administration for the sake of funding, I would suggest that they first consult with the residents of a domestic violence shelter and analogize the individual stories to institutional risks for a better idea of what they may find themselves dealing with down the road.

There are two other outlier options that come to mind, although I question the feasability and viability of both:

1. Individual institutions going fully independent and self-sustaining out of the pockets of those operating it (which creates the new issue of where their own funding is sourced)
2. The creation of an NGO parallel / replacement of the IMLS that derives its funding pool from donations and from professional membership dues (which involves recreating the wheel, as well as potentially serving the current administration's interest in eliminating the IMLS)