21 States File Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over Policies Impacting Museums and Libraries
Title: State Attorneys General Sue Trump Administration Over Attempt to Dismantle Cultural Agencies
In a significant legal challenge to former President Donald Trump’s recent executive actions, a coalition of 21 state attorneys general has filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the dismantling of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and two other federal agencies. The April 4 lawsuit, led by New York, Rhode Island, and Hawaii, takes aim at an executive order designed to gut these institutions by eliminating their “non-statutory functions and components,” a move that critics argue undermines crucial support systems for education, the arts, and historically underserved communities.
Background: Executive Actions Spark Uproar
The controversy began following Trump’s executive actions announced in March 2025, which targeted several federal agencies for overhaul or dissolution, citing a goal of streamlining government operations. The IMLS, the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) were among those set to lose vital components of their infrastructure and operations. These bodies have historically played vital roles in supporting public libraries and museums, minority-owned businesses, and labor relations.
Cultural and educational organizations across the country immediately pushed back, with the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) and the American Library Association (ALA) condemning the decision as a direct attack on public knowledge institutions. Terminated IMLS grants and layoffs of agency staff soon followed, leading to operational turmoil for hundreds of museums and libraries nationwide.
Legal Arguments: Separation of Powers at Stake
At the heart of the lawsuit is the assertion that Trump’s executive order violates the U.S. Constitution’s doctrine of separation of powers. The plaintiffs argue that Congress—not the executive branch—has the authority to establish federal agencies, allocate their budgets, and determine their scope of activities.
In the formal complaint, the attorneys general wrote: “If the President disagrees with Congress’s decision to support the Nation’s libraries and museums, and enable the peaceful mediation of labor disputes, he is free to seek legislation abolishing the agencies… He is not free to do so unilaterally.”
Defendants in the lawsuit include not only Donald Trump but also Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith E. Sonderling, now serving as acting director of IMLS, and Russell T. Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget and a key figure behind Project 2025—a sweeping conservative plan to overhaul the federal government’s executive branch if Trump regains office.
Impact on Museums and Libraries
The lawsuit emerges amid widespread anxiety among cultural institutions facing an abrupt halt to long-planned programming and staffing. The Riverside Art Museum in California, for example, has reported that it is preparing contingency funding plans due to uncertain grant prospects from the IMLS and California Humanities, a National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) partner.
Drew Oberjuerge, Executive Director of the museum, reflected on the significance of the IMLS: “The IMLS has provided knowledge and support to help our organization be a stronger, more impactful one that better serves our diverse community.” The current threat to that support has left organizations like the Riverside Art Museum scrambling to identify alternative revenue options, including the possible scaling back of exhibitions at sites like the Cheech Marin Center for Chicano Art and Culture.
Wider Concerns: A Blow to Vulnerable Communities
Beyond the immediate impact on museums and libraries, the dismantling of the MBDA and FMCS signals troubling implications for workforce development and community-based support. The MBDA is a key resource for minority-owned businesses, while the FMCS plays a critical role in mediating labor disputes across public and private sectors.
“President Trump’s order is another attack on vulnerable communities, small businesses, and our children’s education,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. The suit emphasizes that eliminating these agencies jeopardizes essential services that disproportionately affect marginalized groups—communities that already face barriers to access in education, business, and civic engagement.
Looking Ahead: What’s at Stake
As the lawsuit proceeds through federal court, the case is likely to serve as a bellwether for larger debates surrounding executive authority and the future of publicly funded cultural services in the United States. If successful, the initiative could reaffirm Congress’s exclusive power to make structural changes to federal agencies and uphold legal precedents protecting public access to education and the arts.
In the meantime, institutions, educators, and community leaders are closely watching the fallout, hoping to preserve the scaffolding of America’s cultural infrastructure amid mounting political tensions.
This legal challenge reinforces the broader conversation about the role of public institutions in a democratic society—one where access to knowledge, culture, and civic support are not just valued but protected under the law.
—
Support for independent journalism remains crucial during times of political and cultural upheaval. Consider joining or donating to institutions such as the AAM, ALA, or local museums and libraries to help preserve their essential work.