A library in rural Alaska needed to provide free Wi-Fi and help children read. The Children’s Museum in Washington wanted to expand its Little Science Lab. Additionally, the World War I Museum in Missouri had a large collection of historical documents that needed to be digitized. They received funding from little-known federal agencies before the Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to dismantle the federal government last year.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is currently accepting applications for the 2026 grant cycle. This time, however, there are unusually specific criteria.
In a cover letter accompanying the application, the institute said it “particularly welcomes” projects that align with President Donald Trump’s vision for the United States.
That includes an executive order attacking the Smithsonian’s “divisive, race-centered ideology” and fostering appreciation for this country “through uplifting, positive storytelling,” the agency wrote. (President Trump said the museum focused too much on “how awful slavery was.”) The agency also cited an executive order calling for an end to “the government’s anti-Christian weaponization” and an executive order titled “Make the Buildings of the Union Beautiful Again.”
This recruitment is a major shift for the agency, which until now had guidelines that were apolitical and focused on merit.
Former leaders of both political parties and leaders of the library, history, and museum associations expressed concerns that the funded projects could promote a more constrained or distorted view of American history. Others feared that accepting the grant would subject institutions to scrutiny and control, such as the broader government audit of exhibits at the Smithsonian, “to assess tone, historical framework, and consistency with American ideals.”
Giovanna Urist, who served as the Smithsonian’s senior program officer from 2021 to 2023, said the new guidelines are “appalling.” “I think you just have to look at what’s going on at the Smithsonian to see that the government has very specific goals in mind in terms of controlling the voices of institutions and museums across the country.”
A spokesperson for the agency told ProPublica that it is not uncommon for the institute to publish director letters with grant applications, which inform readers “about the focus of this administration during the sesquicentennial half-year period.” He did not comment on criticism that the letters inject political themes into a historically nonpartisan program.
“Under President Trump’s leadership, IMLS is committed to revitalizing cultural institutions, encouraging 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 institutions that “meet the programmatic requirements and goals” outlined in the funding opportunity “will receive all due consideration and be subject to peer review.”
The spokesperson did not say how the selection process would consider consistency with President Trump’s executive orders or address concerns about administration intrusion into funded agencies.
Founded in 1996, the Institute is the only agency providing federal support for libraries and one of the federal government’s major funders of museums and archives. The long-term grant program fosters community engagement and public access to information, while strengthening the institution’s capacity to manage collections and prepare for disasters. One of the grants, named after former first lady Laura Bush, supports the recruitment and training of library professionals.
Last March, President Trump tried to eliminate the agency through an executive order and fired Director Cindy Landrum, a career library specialist. Attorneys general from 21 states and the American Library Association have filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the Trump administration from dismantling the agency. The court has so far halted the effort.
The government has appointed Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith E. Sonderling to head the agency, but he does not appear to have any professional experience in museums or libraries. (A spokesperson for the institute did not comment on concerns expressed by ProPublica about this story.) In a press release announcing his appointment as acting director, Sonderling said, “We will revitalize IMLS and restore its focus to patriotism, ensuring we uphold our nation’s core values, advance American exceptionalism, and foster love of our country in future generations.”
Ten days later, he placed nearly all 75 of the agency’s employees on leave, fired its board of directors, and revoked some previously awarded grants.
The grants were reinstated under a December court order, and the agency is currently accepting applications for 13 grants with awards ranging from $5,000 to $1 million. The agency currently plans to award about 600 grants totaling more than $78 million, according to Grants.gov.
ProPublica spoke with board members who ran the agency under successive presidential administrations dating back to President Barack Obama’s administration. They said that while priorities differed in each era, those changes were made with input from the field and not to encourage applicants to align their jobs with the president’s worldview. They said the new guidelines show the administration favors certain types of projects and stories.
Crosby Kemper III, a lifelong conservative Republican who was appointed to lead the agency by President Trump in 2019, remained in office during President Joe Biden’s term. He is not a supporter of the former president’s emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and feels that the library and museum field needs to course-correct from its natural leftward shift, but he believes that what comes out of the current Trump administration will not help.
“All of these Trump executive orders, and I mean everything, are just an extension of his own hostility toward anyone who opposes him and his outsized ego,” Kemper said, calling the orders “nonsense” and the grant guidelines “horrible.” “If you’ll forgive the joke, it’s clear that the administration wants a whitewashed story. And that’s wrong.”
Leaders from the American Historical Association, American Library Association and American Alliance of Museums warned that the agency’s changes in grant language and recent funding efforts are creating uncertainty across the field.
Among the questions raised is whether the government will cancel subsidies it has already given out, as it did last year. Will accepting this funding lead to broader scrutiny of institutions like the 52 universities scrutinized for their DEI practices? A spokesperson for the institute did not comment on any of these questions. Sarah Weichsel, executive director of the American Historical Association, said institutions are even concerned about how they will be viewed if they receive funding. “They’re wondering, does accepting the grant mean accepting the executive order here?”
Questions also remain as to whether enough staff remain to properly process applications. The agency’s $112 million budget this year represents about one-third of the funding it has received in recent years. The agency did not respond to questions about its current staffing levels, but requested support for 13 full-time employees in its latest Congressional budget justification document. Former officials said they trust the remaining staff, although small in number, to select high-quality projects and, in Kemper’s words, “do the right thing.”
But staff are only part of the process. Typically, each grant application is reviewed by volunteer library and museum professionals. Susan Hildreth, who led the agency from 2011 to 2015, questions the lack of information about the current process on the agency’s website. “I couldn’t find it anywhere in the documents,” she said. A spokesperson for the institute said the grant process is the same as previous years.
Public opinion polls consistently show that libraries and museums are among the most trusted public institutions in the country by Americans across political lines, and Yurist said libraries and museums are trusted because of their independence. “When the federal government steps up to that scale, it threatens the credibility of community anchors.”
Weichsel said it is important for the public to know how the government aims to shape the country’s culture and institutions that are essential to the country’s ability to understand itself and its past. Patti Gerstenbliss, distinguished research professor at DePaul University Law, agreed, saying the administration’s actions raise serious First Amendment concerns.
“At the very least, the public should know that the government is using funding as a means to essentially force a different representation of American history,” Gerstenbliss said.
