Open Forum

Thanks for this, Joe!

I was trying to come up with the proper wording on how to convey my thoughts on this.  You captured it perfectly!!

And I believe your 3rd bullet point is the vast majority.

Ken Avallon

Philadelphia, PA

I believe your 3rd bullet point

Hi Joe,

Since you have read the order, you know that it states: "...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..." and lists IMLS. I'm curious how you understand that to mean the IMLS has NOT been eliminated. Is it because conversations are using the word "eliminated," rather than "eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law?" I find it interesting you chose to make these claims and accusations against the community at large without explaining your own thought process. 

Thanks,

Sarah

Hi Joe and Ken,

On April 4, a Complaint was filed by numerous states (including some where Trump won) against the Administration. It gives a factual background of what is happening. In my opinion, saying the IMLS is not being "eliminated", while in reality it is being completely gutted is splitting hairs. The end result is that grant funds that were appropriated by Congress are going to be difficult (if not impossible) to receive. If you have any facts in opposition, please provide. Like you, I want to stay informed.

Below is a link to the Complaint. If the hyperlink doesn't work, please try copying and pasting into your URL.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.59257/gov.uscourts.rid.59257.1.0.pdf

Sincerely,

Sharon Hotchkiss

Attorney

Dallas, TX

Good morning Joe,

It could be argued that the language posted by Sarah from the EO, "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" coupled with the entire IMLS staff being put on administrative leave and the letters being sent cancelling grants for which institutions have already raised matches and incurred expenses makes clear the intended outcome of the Executive Order. More explanation would be needed if the intent wasn't to leave these agencies existing in name only. 

------------------------------
Lynda  Kennedy, PhD 
Opinions in these forums are my own. 
------------------------------

Dr. Elliott,

I can appreciate your frustration. The museum field does, indeed, have an obligation to intellectual integrity. However, this situation is not black-and-white, and I would like to add a couple of points for consideration.

·       The EO implies that IMLS will continue the performance of statutory functions as required by law.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/continuing-the-reduction-of-the-federal-bureaucracy/

·       Much of the work done by IMLS is grounded in statute. While there are multiple resources available, a March 20, 2025 letter from the American Library Association to IMLS Acting Director Sonderling outlines and summarizes many examples of the statutory requirements that guide the work of IMLS.

https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/Am%20Library%20Assn%20-%20EO%2014238%20-%202025-03-20_0.pdf  

·       The final retention roster for IMLS has not been released, but approximately 12 of 75 employees remain. This number is insufficient to carry out the many statutory requirements of the agency (once again, please see the ALA letter for reference).

·       DOGE is actively terminating IMLS grants awarded from statutory grant programs. These grant funds were appropriated by Congress, obligated by IMLS, and each grant awardee enters into a contractual grant agreement when accepting an award. 

·       The termination of these grants is a violation of federal contractual agreements. The way in which they are being terminated is also deeply problematic. The 1974 Impoundment Control Act (2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq) has defined procedures that have not been exercised at all. Furthermore, impoundments are generally limited to unobligated funds (again, the grants being terminated have been obligated).    

Now, if you wish for the difference between "gutted" and "eliminated" to be the hill you die on, that is most obviously your right. I, however, am significantly more upset by the fact that the current Administration, DOGE, and the Acting Director of IMLS are clearly prohibiting the execution of the agency's statutory obligations without due process or procedure.

For an example of the impacts this EO has had, I encourage you to read the article linked below.  

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/politics/2025/04/10/maine-libraries-brace-for-impact-of-federal-funding-cuts

Hey Joe

No one owes you or anyone else here "an accounting."

This is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal or a news outlet bound by journalistic integrity. This is a privately operated discussion forum for individuals in the museum field to share thoughts, ask questions, and get support from their peers. Many of us, I dare say thousands, have been impacted by the cuts, the uncertainty, and the core-level fear that our livelihoods are being yanked out from under our feet.  The news on this topic has been rapid, chaotic, and impactful. No apologies for reacting the same way. 

But thank you for outing yourself and identifying others in this community as people who act to support the dismantling of the integrity of our cultural institutions. That's very helpful. 

------------------------------
Bart Hays
Principal/Operations
Pacific Grove CA
------------------------------

Dear Joe

I understand, and want there to continue to be government grants for museums. I think public support for museums is important. I fell like I am looking at this for the edge because I am an emerging museum professional. I encourage discussion. 

Thanks,

Rachel

Dr. Joe Elliott,

While the EO doesn't absolutely eliminate IMLS. There are some things you've missed by only looking at the amendments out of context. 

• 1. There is no statutory promise of 17 million to run the IMLS. Section 210C (20 U.S.C. 9111) "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Director shall establish one account to be used to pay the Federal administrative costs of carrying out this chapter, and not more than $17,000,000 of the total funds appropriated under sections 9108(g), 9123, and 9176 of this title shall be placed in such account." Link.
• 2. The increase to 1 million you referenced is an exception. Link. The state minimum is still normally 680K.
• 3. The minimum can be legally reduced "Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the sum appropriated under the authority of section 9123 of this title and not reserved under subsection (a) for any fiscal year is insufficient to fully satisfy the requirement of subparagraph (A), each of the minimum allotments under such subparagraph shall be reduced ratably." Above link applies.
• 4. Section 9123 which grants the appropriations for state minimums appears to end in 2025. Link.

I too am committed to providing accurate information. And, let be real here. When people say "eliminated" it's not a significant difference to "made unable to perform it's role". We've experienced this already in other govt sectors so it's hardly valid to call this an "alarmist tirade of manufactured outrage".

- Allen

I have one more question, Dr. Elliott. Do you currently work for a museum or a related cultural organization? If I'm finding the correct online resources, you work as a psychologist. I'm curious why you joined this forum to start this "conversation" with people outside of your own industry. If you are involved in our sector, then I will take your concerns more seriously. 

"We" (whoever that is) already don't owe you or anyone else an explanation for anything (again, see Bart Hays' response). If your main profession is indeed as a psychologist, then the museum sector REALLY does not owe you an explanation. 

Heya Joe -

I think you've found a distinction without a difference. You can dance around it anyway you like; the IMLS is no longer serving its function (literally) - functionally eliminated.

I think you might have also found a really insulting way of trying to start a "respectful and thoughtful dialogue" by insisting that some vague entity owes you something; that your fellow professionals "perhaps" acted in bad faith; and questions the credibility and intellectual integrity of anyone who does see something the exact same as you.

Your posts on this thread read a bit like someone attempting to manufacture outrage - just, you know, at your professional peers and not at the administration literally forcing people out of jobs.

Edited to delete a bunch of weird spaces.
------------------------------
Katie Latham
Madison WI
All opinions are solely my own and do not represent any organization.
------------------------------

Dear Dr. Elliott,

Regardless of what the legal intent of the Executive Order was, I am disappointed at the lack of professionalism in your original post, which might even be considered trolling. I do not know if that is intentional or not, but we all, from time to time, say things that come out wrong and are unintentionally confrontational in tone. I have taken the liberty of running your previous message in perplexity.ai with the instructions to make it less confrontational and more collegial. As you can see it does a good job getting your message across without being divisive. I might recommend that you (and others) use this to help make our discussions more civil in this forum.
Best,
The taciturnarchivist
---

Dear all,

I wanted to address some recent discussions regarding the Executive Order related to the IMLS. After reviewing the document, I found that it does not call for the "elimination" of IMLS.

It seems there may have been some misunderstandings or miscommunications on this point. This could be due to a few reasons, such as:

• Misinterpreting the language of the Executive Order,

• Relying on secondhand information from trusted sources,

• Or perhaps being influenced by strong feelings about the current political climate.

As professionals in this field, we all share a responsibility to uphold intellectual integrity. Mistakes and misunderstandings can happen to anyone, and it's important that we acknowledge and correct them when they do.

By clarifying this issue, we can help maintain the credibility and trust that are so important to our work and our community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.