A library in rural Alaska needed help providing free Wi-Fi and getting kids reading. A children’s museum in Washington wanted to expand its Little Science Lab. And a World War I museum in Missouri had a wealth of historical documents to digitize. They received funding from a little-known federal agency before the Trump administration. I tried to disassemble it without success last year.
THE Institute of Museum and Library Services is now accepting applications for its 2026 grant cycle. But this time, it has unusually specific criteria.
In cover letters Accompanying the applications, the institute said it “particularly welcomes” projects that align with President Donald Trump’s vision for America.
These would include those who promote an appreciation of the country “through uplifting and positive stories,” the agency writes, citing a decree which attacks the Smithsonian Institution for its “divisive, race-centered ideology.” (Asset said the museum focused too much on “the severity of slavery.”) The agency also points to a decree calling for an end to “the anti-Christian militarization of the government» and a title Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again.
This solicitation marks a radical change for the agency, whose guidelines had previously been apolitical and merit-based.
Former agency leaders from both political parties, as well as those from library, historical and museum associations, have expressed concern that funded projects could encourage a more constrained or distorted view of American history. Some also feared that by accepting grants, institutions would open themselves to scrutiny and scrutiny, similar to the administration’s wide-ranging audit of Smithsonian exhibits.evaluate tone, historical setting, and alignment with American ideals.”
The new guidelines are “scary,” said Giovanna Urist, who served as senior program manager at the agency from 2021 to 2023. “I think we just have to look at what’s happening with the Smithsonian You should know that the administration has a very specific goal in mind when it comes to controlling the voice of organizations and museums across the country.
An agency spokesperson told ProPublica that it is not unusual for the institute to publish directors’ letters with grant applications, and that it informs readers “of this administration’s thematic priorities during the semi-quincentennial year.” He did not comment on criticism that the letters inserted political themes into a historically nonpartisan agenda.
“Under the leadership of President Trump, IMLS is working to revitalize our cultural institutions, urging less traditional applicants to consider working with us and promoting civic pride and a deep sense of belonging among all Americans,” he said, adding that any institution that “meets the requirements and programmatic goals” outlined in the funding opportunity “will receive due consideration and be subject to peer review.”
The spokesperson did not say how alignment with Trump’s executive orders would factor into the selection process or address concerns about the administration’s intrusion into funded institutions.
Established in 1996, the institute is the only dedicated source of federal support for libraries and a leading federal funder of museums and archives. Its long-standing grant programs promote community engagement and public access to information, while strengthening institutions’ capacity to care for collections and prepare for disasters. A grant, named after former first lady Laura Bushhelps recruit and train library professionals.
Last March, Trump attempted to eliminate the agency through a decree and fired Director Cyndee Landrum, a career librarian. Attorneys general from 21 states and the American Library Association continued the Trump administration prevent him from dismantling the agency; the courts have stopped the efforts for now.
To lead the agency, the administration named Assistant Secretary of Labor Keith E. Sonderling, who does not appear to have any prior work experience in museums or libraries. (A spokesperson for the institute did not comment on ProPublica’s concerns on this matter.) press release Announcing his appointment as interim director, Sonderling said, “We will revitalize IMLS and return the emphasis to patriotism, ensuring we preserve our country’s core values, promote American exceptionalism, and cultivate a love of country in future generations.” »
Ten days later, he placed nearly all of the agency’s 75 employees on administrative leave, fired the board and canceled some previously awarded grants.
The subsidies were reinstated by court decision in December, and the agency is now accepting applications for 13 grants with awards ranging from $5,000 to $1 million. According to Grants.govthe agency now plans to award nearly 600 grants totaling more than $78 million.
ProPublica spoke with directors who have led the agency under every previous presidential administration, dating back to Barack Obama’s. Although each era brought different priorities, they said, these changes were implemented with input from the field — not by encouraging candidates to align their work with a president’s worldview. With the new guidelines, they said, the administration is signaling a preference for certain types of projects and stories.
Crosby Kemper III, a longtime conservative Republican appointed by Trump to lead the agency in 2019, remained during President Joe Biden’s term. While he wasn’t a fan of the former president’s focus on diversity, equity and inclusion and believes the library and museum fields needed a change of direction from their natural leftward trend, he believes what’s coming from the current Trump administration isn’t helpful.
“All of these Trump executive orders — and I mean all of them — are just extensions of his own animosity toward anyone who disagrees with him and his inflated ego,” said Kemper, who called the executive orders “nonsense” and the grant-making guidelines “horrible.” “It’s clear that the administration wants a whitewashed story, if you’ll pardon the pun. And that’s wrong.”
Leaders of the American Historical Association, the American Library Association and the American Alliance of Museums have warned that changes to the agency’s grant text and recent funding actions have led to uncertainty in the field.
Among the questions raised: would the government revoke the subsidies it had already granted, as it did last year? Would accepting this money open institutions to broader investigations, such as 52 universities scrutinized for their DEI practices? The institute’s spokesperson had no comment on any of these issues. Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, said institutions even worry about how they would be perceived if they accepted the funds. “They are wondering if accepting the grant is a sign that they accept the executive orders that have been presented here?”
Questions also remain about whether there are enough staff left to properly process applications. The agency $112 million This year’s budget represents about a third of the funding received in recent years. The agency did not respond to a question about its current staff, but in its latest congressional budget justification document it requested support for 13 full-time employees. Former agency officials said that number was small, but that they trusted the remaining employees to choose quality projects and, in Kemper’s words, “do the right thing.”
But employees are only part of the process. Typically, each grant application is reviewed by volunteer experts from libraries and museums. Susan Hildreth, who led the agency from 2011 to 2015, questions the lack of information about the current process for the agency website. “I couldn’t find it anywhere in the documentation,” she said. The institute’s spokesperson said the grant process remains the same as in previous years.
Opinion polls consistently reveal that libraries And museums are among the nation’s public institutions most trusted by Americans across the political spectrum, and Urist said they are trusted because of their independence. “When the federal government puts its thumb on this scale, it threatens the reliability of these community pillars. »
Weicksel said it’s important for the public to know how the administration intends to shape institutions critical to the nation’s culture and its ability to understand itself and its past. Patty Gerstenblith, a distinguished research professor of law at DePaul University, agrees, saying the administration’s actions raise serious First Amendment concerns.
“Certainly, at a minimum,” Gerstenblith said, “people should know that the government is using its funding as a way to essentially force a different presentation of American history.”