Trump Can Proceed With Library Agency Cuts, Judge Rules \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge has denied the American Library Association’s request to stop President Trump’s efforts to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The judge cited recent rulings that suggest such disputes belong in a specialized court for federal claims. Despite the decision, another ruling in Rhode Island continues to temporarily block the agency’s closure.
Quick Looks
- Federal judge denies ALA’s request to stop agency dismantling
- Case concerns Trump’s executive order cutting library funding
- Judge cites Supreme Court ruling redirecting grant disputes
- Court of Federal Claims may be proper jurisdiction, not D.C.
- Agency grants over $266M annually to libraries, museums
- Rhode Island court injunction against shutdown still stands
Deep Look
A federal judge on Friday rejected a legal bid by the American Library Association (ALA) to immediately block the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), a small but impactful federal agency that funds and supports libraries and museums across the United States. The ruling, while procedural in nature, underscores how executive power and judicial precedent are reshaping the reach and permanence of agencies created by Congress.
The case stems from President Donald Trump’s March 14 executive order, which identified the IMLS and several other federal entities as “unnecessary,” initiating a phase-out process that included laying off staff, canceling grant agreements, and firing the entire National Museum and Library Services Board. The agency, which employed approximately 75 staff members, had distributed over $266 million in federal grants the previous year to support public libraries, cultural institutions, historical preservation, and underserved community programs.
While the lawsuit by the ALA and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) argued that the president overstepped his constitutional authority by unilaterally attempting to close a congressionally authorized agency, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the matter could not be decided in his court due to jurisdictional limitations.
“Though the Court laments the Executive Branch’s efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,” Judge Leon wrote, “recent legal decisions compel us to yield to the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.”
Leon’s decision reflects the influence of recent Supreme Court rulings, particularly one that allowed the Trump administration to cut off hundreds of millions in teacher-training grants despite an earlier court injunction. These rulings, taken together, suggest that disputes involving the withholding or cancellation of federal funding fall under the scope of the Court of Federal Claims — a specialized tribunal designed to handle monetary claims against the U.S. government.
Broader Context: Dismantling by Executive Order
Trump’s executive order to dismantle the IMLS is part of a broader effort to streamline or eliminate smaller federal agencies, many of which focus on education, the arts, and cultural programming. Agencies such as the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) have also faced budget threats or administrative rollbacks under Trump’s administration. Critics argue that these measures reflect a broader ideological move to undermine public institutions that are perceived to lean liberal or support inclusive, community-driven programming.
By targeting the IMLS, Trump has positioned himself against a traditionally bipartisan area of federal support — libraries. The IMLS was created by Congress in 1996 and has been reauthorized multiple times with support from both Republicans and Democrats, largely due to its apolitical mission of boosting literacy, digital access, and educational equity.
Court Battles Ahead: Rhode Island and Federal Claims Court
Despite Judge Leon’s ruling, the dismantling of the IMLS is not yet a done deal. A separate court case in Rhode Island, brought by a coalition of states, succeeded in obtaining a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the administration from shuttering the agency. That ruling remains in effect, at least for now, and the Trump administration has appealed.
Legal experts suggest the conflict over IMLS will become a multi-jurisdictional battle, with one strand unfolding in the Court of Federal Claims over the canceled grants and another in appellate courts over the constitutionality of dismantling congressionally created agencies by executive action.
In the meantime, thousands of local libraries, especially in rural and economically disadvantaged areas, face uncertainty as grant funding dries up or remains suspended. Many small libraries rely on IMLS grants not just for books, but for broadband access, community programs, and educational resources.
Political and Public Response
Reactions to the ruling were swift. The ALA expressed deep disappointment, calling the decision a troubling precedent that “weakens congressional oversight and empowers the executive branch to unilaterally eliminate institutions that serve public education and information access.” The organization is exploring legal options, including appeals and possible filings in the Court of Federal Claims.
Cultural organizations and public interest groups have also warned that the dismantling of the IMLS may be just the beginning. If Trump succeeds in bypassing congressional authority to eliminate an agency, it could open the door to similar actions against other independent agencies — including those that regulate finance, protect the environment, or oversee civil rights compliance.
House Democrats have vowed to introduce legislation reinstating the agency and limiting the president’s ability to unilaterally shut down entities created by Congress. Whether such legislation can survive in the current political climate, however, remains unclear, especially with Republicans controlling the House and Senate.
A Legal Precedent in the Making?
Legal scholars are watching the case closely. The core issue is not just about libraries, but about the separation of powers: Can the executive branch nullify an agency without Congress formally revoking its authorization?
If the courts ultimately side with the administration, it would mark a significant expansion of executive authority. If they do not, it would be a rare check on Trump’s growing use of executive orders to reshape the federal government from within.
As the legal and political battle plays out, the fate of the IMLS hangs in the balance — as do the futures of thousands of community-based programs that rely on its funding. The final outcome will likely be decided not just in the courts, but in the 2026 election, where education, culture, and the role of government are all likely to take center stage.
Trump Can Proceed Trump Can Proceed Trump Can Proceed
You must Register or Login to post a comment.