The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the only dedicated source of federal support for libraries, has taken a "chilling" political turn under the Trump administration. The agency is now accepting applications for its 2026 grant cycle with unusually specific criteria that aligns with President Donald Trump's vision for America.
The guidelines encourage projects that foster an appreciation for the country through uplifting and positive narratives, citing executive orders that attack the Smithsonian Institution for its "divisive, race-centered ideology." This marks a stark departure from the agency's previous apolitical approach, which focused on merit. Former leaders of the agency have expressed concern that funded projects could encourage a more constrained or distorted view of American history.
Critics argue that by accepting grants, institutions may be opening themselves up to scrutiny and control, like the administration's audit of Smithsonian exhibits "to assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals." Giovanna Urist, who served as a senior program officer at IMLS from 2021 to 2023, warned that the new guidelines are "chilling" and signal a preference for certain types of projects and narratives.
Established in 1996, IMLS has long promoted community engagement and public access to information while bolstering institutions' ability to care for collections and prepare for disasters. However, under the Trump administration, changes to the agency's grant language and recent funding actions have led to uncertainty across the field.
Leaders of professional associations warn that accepting grants could make institutions perceived as accepting the executive orders laid out by the administration, which has raised serious First Amendment concerns. Patty Gerstenblith, distinguished research professor of Law at DePaul University, noted that the government's use of funding as a way of coercing a different presentation of American history is "certainly at a minimum" a cause for concern.
The agency's acting director, Keith E. Sonderling, has stated his intention to revitalize IMLS and restore focus on patriotism, ensuring preservation of core values, promotion of American exceptionalism, and cultivation of love of country in future generations. However, former leaders of the agency have expressed skepticism about the administration's goals and methods.
The new guidelines mark a significant shift in the agency's approach, which has raised concerns among institutions, professionals, and the public about the potential impact on the country's cultural landscape and the trustworthiness of community anchors like libraries and museums.
The guidelines encourage projects that foster an appreciation for the country through uplifting and positive narratives, citing executive orders that attack the Smithsonian Institution for its "divisive, race-centered ideology." This marks a stark departure from the agency's previous apolitical approach, which focused on merit. Former leaders of the agency have expressed concern that funded projects could encourage a more constrained or distorted view of American history.
Critics argue that by accepting grants, institutions may be opening themselves up to scrutiny and control, like the administration's audit of Smithsonian exhibits "to assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals." Giovanna Urist, who served as a senior program officer at IMLS from 2021 to 2023, warned that the new guidelines are "chilling" and signal a preference for certain types of projects and narratives.
Established in 1996, IMLS has long promoted community engagement and public access to information while bolstering institutions' ability to care for collections and prepare for disasters. However, under the Trump administration, changes to the agency's grant language and recent funding actions have led to uncertainty across the field.
Leaders of professional associations warn that accepting grants could make institutions perceived as accepting the executive orders laid out by the administration, which has raised serious First Amendment concerns. Patty Gerstenblith, distinguished research professor of Law at DePaul University, noted that the government's use of funding as a way of coercing a different presentation of American history is "certainly at a minimum" a cause for concern.
The agency's acting director, Keith E. Sonderling, has stated his intention to revitalize IMLS and restore focus on patriotism, ensuring preservation of core values, promotion of American exceptionalism, and cultivation of love of country in future generations. However, former leaders of the agency have expressed skepticism about the administration's goals and methods.
The new guidelines mark a significant shift in the agency's approach, which has raised concerns among institutions, professionals, and the public about the potential impact on the country's cultural landscape and the trustworthiness of community anchors like libraries and museums.
I'm really worried about this... the IMLS is supposed to be neutral and support all types of projects, but now it seems like they're favoring super patriotic and nationalist stuff that can be seen as really biased 
. What's next? Are we gonna see grants for "American exceptionalism" only? And what about all the other amazing stories and histories that aren't exactly "patriotic"? 
It feels like they're trying to shape our perception of history and it's not right... I mean, libraries and museums are supposed to be about preserving knowledge and promoting understanding, not just peddling a certain ideology 
. Can't we just keep things neutral and let people decide what they want to learn? 
... IMLS is supposed to be all about community engagement and public access to info, but now they're trying to dictate what kind of projects are 'American' enough for funding? It's like they're forcing a specific narrative on institutions instead of letting them choose their own path. This is exactly why people don't trust the gov anymore 
from the admin 
the idea that institutions can't just present a balanced view of american history without being "chilling" 
is just not cool 
and what's up with the executive orders about smithsonian exhibits? it sounds like they're trying to rewrite the narrative 
or something, which is super concerning 
. Now it feels like they're trying to control what we can say and how we interpret history 
. That's worrying me, you know? What if this sets a precedent for other grants and funding? 
I've seen some comments from professionals saying that accepting these grants could make them look like they're going along with the administration's agenda 
. And what about free speech? isn't that what libraries and museums are all about? 
This whole thing feels really chillin' to me 
.
I'm getting this weird vibe from IMLS's new grant guidelines 
The fact that the Trump administration is pushing for this "patriotic" agenda is concerning 
and that's just not cool 
. It's already hard enough to get some people to care about the arts and sciences... now it feels like they're trying to force a certain narrative instead of letting the public decide what resonates with them 
Can we please stick to fact-based narratives here? 