What is the most likely outcome of the shakeout?
The following information was generated by X’s Grok.
The suspension of grant processing at the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) due to nearly all staff being placed on administrative leave is a significant disruption for libraries and museums across the USA. This situation stems from an executive order issued by the Trump administration on March 14, 2025, aimed at reducing or eliminating the agency “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.” As of March 31, 2025, the entire IMLS staff of approximately 70 employees was placed on leave, halting the administration of grants critical to library and museum operations. Given the current date of April 1, 2025, the immediate impact is unfolding, and libraries will indeed begin feeling the loss of funds within weeks if the situation persists.
Determining which grants are most likely to be resurrected once the administration evaluates them involves understanding the legal framework, congressional intent, and practical importance of IMLS programs. The 2018 Museum and Library Services Act (MLSA) provides the statutory basis for IMLS operations, and the executive order specifies that only “statutory functions” must be maintained, while “non-statutory components” can be eliminated. This distinction is key to predicting which grants might be prioritized for reinstatement.
The Grants to States program is the most likely candidate for resurrection. This program, authorized under Section 9141 of the MLSA, is the largest source of federal funding for library services, distributing over $160 million annually to State Library Administrative Agencies (SLAAs) based on a population-driven formula. The language in the law uses “shall,” indicating a mandatory obligation for IMLS to administer these funds, unlike discretionary programs described with “may.” This statutory requirement makes it difficult for the administration to eliminate the program without congressional action, and it has strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by the 2018 reauthorization passing with overwhelming approval (331-28 in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate). Practically, this program supports essential services like interlibrary loans, statewide databases, and digital access in rural and underserved areas—services that states and local communities rely on heavily. The EveryLibrary statement emphasizes that Congress intended this program to strengthen state libraries, suggesting it would be a priority to restore due to its foundational role and legal protection.
In 2024, Wisconsin libraries received $3,230,831 under the Grants to States program
Other programs, such as the National Leadership Grants for Libraries (Section 9162) and the Services for Native Americans Program (Section 9161), also have statutory backing with “shall” language, making them strong contenders for reinstatement. The National Leadership Grants fund innovative projects that advance library practices nationwide, while the Native American program supports library services for tribal communities—both align with congressional mandates and serve broad, impactful purposes. However, their smaller scale and less universal application compared to Grants to States might place them slightly lower in priority.
Discretionary programs like the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program (Section 9165) and the Museum Services Program (Section 9173) are less certain. These are framed with “may” in the legislation, indicating they are not mandatory, and thus more vulnerable to cuts under the executive order’s directive to eliminate non-statutory functions. The Laura Bush program supports librarian training and workforce development, while the Museum Services Program aids museum operations—both valuable but not legally required. Their resurrection would likely depend on political pressure, public outcry, or evidence of their cost-effectiveness (e.g., the IMLS budget of $294.8 million in FY24 translates to just 75 cents per capita, yet serves over 1.2 billion library users annually).
The administration’s evaluation, influenced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and potentially Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), will likely prioritize grants with clear statutory mandates and widespread impact to avoid legal challenges or congressional backlash. The Grants to States program stands out as the most defensible and essential, given its legal footing, scale (over 1,500 projects annually), and role in sustaining library ecosystems nationwide. For context, in FY24, it accounted for over $211 million of IMLS’s $294.8 million budget, dwarfing other programs in scope and reach.
That said, the process is not purely legalistic—political and economic factors will play a role. Libraries and museums contribute $50 billion annually to the US economy and support jobs, tourism, and education, as noted by the American Alliance of Museums. Advocacy from groups like the American Library Association (ALA), EveryLibrary, and the public could push for broader restoration, but the administration’s stated goal of reducing federal bureaucracy suggests a leaner IMLS, if it survives. The FY25 budget, enacted via a continuing resolution on March 14, 2025, and funded through September 2025, complicates cuts to already obligated funds, further bolstering the case for statutory programs.
In summary, the Grants to States program is the most likely to be resurrected due to its mandatory status, extensive reach, and critical role in library funding. The National Leadership Grants and Native American services could follow, contingent on their statutory weight and advocacy, while discretionary programs like Laura Bush and Museum Services face a tougher road unless external pressure shifts the administration’s stance. The next few weeks will reveal how libraries adapt, but the legal backbone of Grants to States makes it the cornerstone for any restored IMLS activity.