Since its creation in 1996, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has played a central role in the American cultural landscape. By funding regional museums, public libraries, digitization programs or educational devices in rural areas, this federal agency embodies one of the last levers of direct action in the federal state in the field of culture. It is precisely this position that the Trump administration has been trying to question since January 2025, by ordering its dismantling by presidential decree.
Last March, a decree of the White House ordered the abolition of the IMLS, on the grounds that its missions would not fall under the competence of the federal state and could be provided by the private sector. The decision immediately sparked a lifting of shields: twenty -one states, joined by unions and user associations, filed an appeal to the Rhode Island Federal Court.
On June 5, 2025, this court, chaired by judge John J. McConnell, confirmed a first decision rendered in April: this provisional measure prohibited the federal administration from implementing the deletion decree. The judge recalled that only the congress, not the executive, can create or delete a federal agency. He also considered that the complainants risked irreparable damage in the event of the closure of the IMLS, and that the government had not provided proof of a higher public interest justifying such a suppression.
This decision constitutes a victory for the agency and its supporters. She confirms that the presidential decree is legally questionable, in particular with regard to the separation of powers. It protects the institutional existence of the IMLS pending judgment on the substance. In theory, as long as this injunction remains in force, the agency cannot be dissolved or merged.
However, a few days before this confirmation, another decision was made in a separate file, also relating to the fate of the Imls. In the ALA v. Soundling, educated in Washington (Columbia District), several beneficiaries of IMLS programs – including the American Library Association – had requested an injunction to block the suspension of their subsidies, the leave of certain agency agents, and the cancellation of current contracts.
Justice Richard Leon rejected this request, not by contesting the seriousness of the situation, but by declaring his incompetent court. According to him, this type of dispute falls under the Court of Federal Claims (Federal Court of Complaints), a jurisdiction specializing in contractual litigation between the federal state to third parties. He therefore did not examine the background of the file, but declined the jurisdiction of his court.
These two decisions may seem contradictory: how does one protect the Imls, while the other allows the administration to act against its beneficiaries? In reality, these decisions respond to distinct logics and do not relate to the same issues.
The injunction maintained at Rhode Island protects the Imls as a federal agency: it prohibits the administration from suppressing it or merging its structures. On the other hand, the decision of the Columbia district concerns side effects: suspension of programs, contract terminations, blocking of grants. These are administrative acts that the executive can therefore still decide, as long as they do not directly violate the provisional measure of Rhode Island.
The fragility of the situation of the IMLS therefore lies in this dissociation: if the agency cannot be officially dissolved, it can nevertheless be asphyxiated from the interior by stopping its programs and the withdrawal of its human resources. This dismantling tactic without formal suppression allows the White House to partially bypass the judicial constraint, by weakening the agency failing to abolish it.
The fight around the IMLS is not only played only in courtrooms. The Museum and Library Services Act (MLSA), the law which legally founds the agency, expires on September 30, 2025. If the congress does not renew this legislation, the agency will lose any legal basis for existence, whatever the court decisions. In addition, the 2026 budget transmitted by the White House provides only $ 6 million for the IMLS, against 294 million in 2024 – a symbolic sum, intended to organize the closure of the agency.
