A library in rural Alaska needed help providing free Wi-Fi and getting kids to read. A children’s museum in Washington wanted to expand its Little Science Lab. And a World War I museum in Missouri had a raft of historic documents it needed to digitize. They received funding from a little-known federal agency before the Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to dismantle it 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 that foster an appreciation for the country “through uplifting and positive narratives,” the agency writes, citing an executive order that attacks the Smithsonian Institution for its “divisive, race-centered ideology.” (Trump has said the museum focused too much on “how bad slavery was.”) The agency also points to an executive order calling for the end of “the anti-Christian weaponization of government” and one titled Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again.
The solicitation marks a stark departure for the agency, whose guidelines were previously apolitical and focused on merit.
Former agency leaders from both political parties, as well as those of library, historical and museum associations, 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 up to scrutiny and control, like the administration’s wide-ranging audit of Smithsonian exhibits “to assess tone, historical framing and alignment with American ideals.”
The new guidelines are “chilling,” said Giovanna Urist, who served as a senior program officer at the agency from 2021 to 2023. “I think that we just need to look at what’s happening with the Smithsonian to 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 it is not unusual for the institute to publish directors’ letters with grant applications, and that this one informs readers “about this Administration’s thematic emphases in the semi-quincentennial year.” He did not comment on criticisms that those letters insert political themes into a historically nonpartisan program.
“Under President Trump’s leadership, IMLS is working to revitalize our cultural institutions, urging less traditional applicants to consider working with us, and to promote civic pride and a deep sense of belonging among all Americans,” he said, adding that any institution that “meets programmatic requirements and goals” outlined in the funding opportunity “will receive all due consideration and undergo peer review.”
The spokesperson did not say how alignment with Trump’s executive orders would be weighed in 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 one of the primary federal funders of museums and archives. Its long-running grant programs promote community engagement and public access to information, while bolstering institutions’ ability to care for collections and prepare for disasters. One grant, named after former first lady Laura Bush, helps recruit and train library professionals.
Last March, Trump attempted to eliminate the agency through an executive order and fired director Cyndee Landrum, a career library professional. Attorneys general from 21 states and the American Library Association sued the Trump administration to block it from dismantling the agency; the courts have halted the efforts for now.
To head the agency, the administration appointed Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith E. Sonderling, who does not appear to have prior professional experience in museums or libraries. (An institute spokesperson didn’t comment on concerns ProPublica passed along about this.) In a press release announcing his appointment as acting director, Sonderling said, “We will revitalize IMLS and restore focus on patriotism, ensuring we preserve our country’s core values, promote American exceptionalism and cultivate love of country in future generations.”
Ten days later, he put nearly all of the agency’s 75 employees on administrative leave, fired the board and rescinded some previously awarded grants.
The grants were reinstated under court order in December, and the agency is now accepting applications for 13 grants whose awards range from $5,000 to $1 million. According to Grants.gov, the agency now expects to award nearly 600 grants totaling more than $78 million.
ProPublica spoke with directors who ran the agency under every previous presidential administration dating back to Barack Obama’s. Though each era brought different priorities, they said, those changes were implemented with input from the field — not by encouraging applicants 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 narratives.
Crosby Kemper III, a lifelong conservative Republican appointed by Trump to lead the agency in 2019, stayed on into President Joe Biden’s term. While he was not a fan of the former president’s emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion and feels that the library and museum fields needed a course correction from their natural lean to the left, he believes that what is coming out of the current Trump administration is not helpful.
“All these Trump executive orders — and I mean all of them — are just extensions of his own animus towards anybody who disagrees with him and his outsized ego,” said Kemper, who called the orders “nonsense” and the grant guidelines “horrific.” “It’s clear the administration wants a whitewashed story, if you’ll pardon the pun there. And that’s wrong.”
Leaders of the American Historical Association, the American Library Association and the American Alliance of Museums warned that changes to the agency’s grant language and recent funding actions have led to uncertainty across the field.
Among questions raised: Would the government revoke grants it had already awarded, as it did last year? Would accepting the money open up institutions to broader investigations, like the 52 universities scrutinized over their DEI practices? The institute spokesperson did not comment on either of those questions. Sarah Weicksel, the American Historical Association’s executive director, said institutions are even worried about how they would be perceived if they took the funds. “They’re wondering, is accepting the grant a sign that they accept the executive orders that have been laid out here?”
Questions also remain about whether enough staff is left to process the applications properly. The agency’s $112 million budget for this year is roughly a third of the funding it has received in recent years. The agency did not answer a question about its current staffing, but in its most recent Congressional Budget Justification document, it requested support for 13 full-time employees. Former agency officials said that number is low, but that they trusted the remaining staffers to choose quality projects and, in the words of Kemper, “do the right thing.”
But staffers are only part of the process. Typically, each grant application is reviewed by volunteer library and museum experts. 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 documentation,” she said. The institute spokesperson said the grant process remains the same as previous years.
Opinion polls consistently find that libraries and museums are among the most trusted public institutions in the country by Americans across the political spectrum, and Urist said they are trusted because of their independence. “When the federal government puts its thumb on that scale, it threatens the trustworthiness of these community anchors.”
Weicksel said it’s important for the public to know how the administration is aiming to shape institutions essential to the nation’s culture and ability to understand itself and its past. Patty Gerstenblith, distinguished research professor of Law at DePaul University, agreed, saying that 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 of essentially coercing a different presentation of American history.”
This story originally appeared on ProPublica
