Concern Over Fate of IMLS Drives Scrutiny by Stakeholders
What's Happening Here?
It was a relatively quiet release of a presidential Executive Order late on a Friday afternoon. Specifically entitled “Continuing the Reduction of The Federal Bureaucracy”, the order required that “Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the non-statutory components and functions of the following governmental entities shall be eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, and such entities shall reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law.”
The head of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), along with six others, was directed to explain by March 21st, which specific “components or functions of the governmental entity, if any” were “statutorily required and to what extent.” Once that explanation was handed in to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Order indicated that the Director of OMB or other appropriate executive head responsible for reviewing grant requests from IMLS “shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law and except insofar as necessary to effectuate an expected termination, reject funding requests for such governmental entities to the extent they are inconsistent with this order.”
Not surprisingly, there was an eruption of response from the information community. Within days, Gary Price of Infodocket had created a roster of protest statements to the particular Executive Order. Entities such as the American Library Association issued statements, characterizing the order as an assault on the sole federal agency dedicated to library funding. The Association of Moving Image Archivists urged followers on LinkedIn to contact their representatives in the House and Senate. Baltimore’s renowned Peale Museum expressed alarm that the Order sent a “clear signal that the federal government is abandoning its role in supporting the institutions that educate, inspire, and unite us”. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) voiced concern over “global consequences”, noting:
The United States is a key hub in the global knowledge ecosystem and has also long been an enabler of access to information internationally. US influence has helped to build more inclusive and prosperous societies in many parts of the world; therefore, recent policy reversals merit worldwide attention.
The publication, The Conversation, with its tagline of Academic Rigor, Journalistic Flair, featured a contribution by Devon Ackmon, Director of the MSU Museum and CoLab Studio, Michigan State University, saying that any defunding represented “a disinvestment in an informed, connected and resilient society.”
Just as the Order’s stated seven day period was up, video posted to the social media platform Bluesky documented individuals representing the recently formalized entity, the United States DOGE Service (USDS) as being on the premises of IMLS.
The Point of IMLS
The IMLS had been created through legislation in 1996 by melding together the Institute of Museum Services (formed in 1976) and the Library Programs Office, operating since 1956 under the Department of Education. (See an official government timeline as preserved via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.) Oversight of IMLS is handled by the National Museum and Library Services Board, The official appropriations request for 2025 totaled $271,900,000 for programs and administrative costs. Numerous sources indicate that the IMLS appropriation makes up only 0.0046% of the federal budget.
Reporting by Inside HigherEd pointed out that even this amount seems problematic for the current administration, writing, “Trump…has had his sights on dismantling the agency since his first term in office. In 2018, Congress rejected his proposal to defund IMLS, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.” Prior to the 2024 election, the EveryLibrary Institute, a 501(c)4 political action group, had alerted stakeholders that Project 2025 took a negative view of IMLS activities.
The notably left-leaning periodical The New Republic put forward this point in their coverage:
Local libraries are mostly funded by local tax dollars, but the funding they do get from the federal government goes towards things like employee training and technology updates. This is especially critical in more remote areas.
A writer on Substack stressed the point that the issue was really about support for communities and underscored the critical need for local advocacy work.
Management Moving Forward
On March 20, 2025, Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith E. Sonderling was sworn in as the new Acting Director of IMLS, An official press release included this statement:
"I am committed to steering this organization in lockstep with this Administration to enhance efficiency and foster innovation. 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...”
Hard on the heels of that swearing-in ceremony came a “Welcome” letter from the National Museum and Library Services Board reminding the Acting Director of its oversight role as well as the specific activities that IMLS is obligated to fulfill:
Additionally, Congress has codified structural and administrative requirements that establish the lawful foundation for the agency’s continued operation. These include:
• The Institute must include both an Office of Library Services and an Office of Museum Services (§9102).
• IMLS shall conduct ongoing research, data collection, and policy evaluation related to libraries and museums and shall disseminate this information to the public and the field (§9108).
• The Director of IMLS shall be responsible for the development and implementation of policy and the coordination of IMLS activities with other federal agencies (§9103).
• The National Museum and Library Services Board must exist and meet at least twice per year to advise the Director on policy matters (§9105a).
Moreover, in addition to the agency’s statutory requirements under the Museum and Library Services Act, IMLS is also bound by law to carry out requirements under other statutes, including the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. § 80r– 5(b)) and the National Museum of the American Latino Act (20 U.S.C. § 80u(f)(2). All such statutory obligations may not be discontinued or delayed under an Executive Order or other executive action.
On March 26, Sonderling received a second letter, one from members of the United States Senate, reminding him of the scope of the Director's role which encompasses the following:
“the development and implementation of policy to ensure the availability of museum, library, and information services adequate to meet the essential information, education, research, economic, cultural, and civic needs of the people of the United States.”
As of 2:00 p.m., March 31, staff at the Institute of Museum and Library Services were notified that they had been placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits. One staffer posted a pdf of the letter notification.
The Final Result? Not Yet Known
Recipients of this April 2 issue of NISO I/O will recognize that not even a full month will have passed since the President issued his directive. It remains to be seen what the impact of the order of March 14 will prove to be, whether viewed from a short- or long-term perspective. Does the order have the net effect of virtually eliminating the important services provided by IMLS or will engagement by DOGE deliver a more focused style of innovation and effectiveness? What is clear is that, across all sectors, the information community will be watching.
