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attempted to dismantle IMLS by executive order, fired its director, placed most staff on administrative leave, rescinded previously awarded grants, and dismissed the board.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.
------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig
------------------------------