What’s Next for IMLS: Reinstatement, Legal Win & Funding’s Fragile Future

The executive order issued on March 14, 2025—Executive Order 14238—ordered the IMLS to be eliminated “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law,” effectively stripping it of its statutory functions and reducing its workforce to the minimum required by law. This action included putting its entire staff (approximately 70–77 employees) on paid administrative leave and suspending all grant funding, resulting in rapid disruption for institutions nationwide.

IMLS plays a modest but essential role in U.S. federal spending; in 2024 it distributed approximately $266.7 million in grants—a sliver (0.003%) of the federal budget—but the programs supported are broad and deeply impactful, especially for vulnerable populations and underserved communities across more than 125,000 libraries and museums. The bulk of this funding is allocated through the “Grants to States” program—approximately $180 million in 2024—which supports resource access such as e-books, statewide digital services, library staff training, and outreach initiatives.

The fallout from grant cancellations and staff reductions has been immediate and widespread. Public library operations in rural states, such as South Dakota and Washington, have already seen service reductions—suspending interlibrary loans, digital access platforms, or reducing hours and staff. Correctional facility libraries, many already under-resourced, are also affected; states like Washington stand to lose services in prisons that rely on IMLS funding for collections, technology, re-entry programs, and staffing.

Legal challenges led by the American Library Association (ALA), several states, and allied organizations culminated in a federal court ruling in late 2025 that found the administration’s attempt to dismantle IMLS unlawful, resulting in the reinstatement of all federal grants canceled earlier in the year. However, the agency’s long-term fate now depends on Congressional decisions regarding funding for the fiscal year 2026 and potential statutory reforms.

Strategic implications:

• For libraries and museums: operations and programming that were halted must now quickly restart, but many institutions may struggle to recuperate lost trust, staff morale, and community engagement.
• For policymakers: this case underscores the constitutional limits on executive power, especially with respect to agencies created by Congress and appropriations law, likely influencing future budget and agency reform efforts.
• For cultural infrastructure: the reinstatement presents a temporary relief, but systemic vulnerability beyond funding—such as declining physical visits and shrinking book collections—requires longer-term attention and strategy.

Open questions:

• What will Congress do in the FY26 appropriations cycle—will funding for IMLS be preserved, reduced, or altered structurally?
• How many libraries and museums lost programs permanently, beyond the reinstatable grants, due to timing, staffing turnover, or uninsurable harm?
• What legal precedents does the judicial ruling establish regarding the executive branch’s ability to unilaterally curtail or dismantle agencies, especially in contexts driven by ideological or cost-cutting agendas?