Trump Administration Abruptly Ends Its Legal Bid to Shutter the IMLS

And just like that, it’s over. In an abrupt end to a contentious, DOGE-fueled year of litigation over the fate of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Trump administration this week officially ended its bid to shutter the agency via executive order, throwing in the towel in two separate legal cases.

ALA and AFSCME Prevail in Fight to Protect Libraries and Museums Nationwide

On April 9, 2026, the American Library Association (ALA) – the largest library association in the world – and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) – the nation’s largest union of cultural workers – reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that protects the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and ensures the agency will continue carrying out its congressionally mandated work.

ALA

First, in a brief order issued on April 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted an unopposed motion from the Trump Administration to drop the IMLS from its appeal of judge John J. McConnell’s November 2025 decision permanently blocking the Trump administration from shutting down several agencies—including the IMLS—via the president’s March 14 executive order.

And on April 9, DOJ lawyers executed a separate agreement to settle a parallel case over the IMLS filed by the American Library Association and AFSCME. That case had been set to resume later this month with cross-motions for summary judgment. But as Words & Money first reported in February, the two sides had asked the court for a stay in anticipation of settling the case.

In an email to members, ALA president Sam Helmick welcomed the end of the litigation.

“This agreement is a decisive outcome that ensures IMLS can continue fulfilling its mission as the sole federal agency dedicated to supporting libraries nationwide. Combined with the recent news that the Administration dropped its appeal of Rhode Island v. Trump–the separate, parallel case brought by several state Attorneys General challenging the Administration’s dismantling of IMLS–all related litigation is now resolved," Helmick wrote.

What Happens Now?

The end of the legal battle comes a year after 21 states first sued the administration on April 4, 2025, in federal court in Rhode Island, seeking to block the Trump administration’s March 14 order. The ALA's parallel suit was filed in federal court in Washington D.C. days later, on April 7.

Both suits argued that Trump’s order violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the Constitution.

In their defense, DOJ lawyers countered with a largely technical legal argument, asserting that court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the cases.

But in an unequivocal May 6, 2025 opinion, judge John J. McConnell agreed with the states, and blocked the Trump administration’s unilateral effort to dismantle the IMLS and the other congressionally sanctioned agencies. And in a November 21, 2025 summary judgment decision, McConnell made his preliminary injunction permanent.

In a Major Victory, Rhode Island Judge Permanently Blocks Trump’s Bid to Shutter the IMLS

In a November 21 summary judgment ruling, judge John J. McConnell held that the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the IMLS and several other federal agencies via executive order was both illegal and unconstitutional.

Words & MoneyAndrew Richard Albanese

The ALA/AFSCME case did not proceed as smoothly as the states’ action in Rhode Island.

After winning a month-long temporary restraining order, Judge Richard J. Leon later denied the ALA’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that recently decided cases had created “a substantial question” as to whether the ALA’s action did in fact belong in another forum, as DOJ attorneys had argued.

In About Face, Judge Denies ALA’s Bid to Block IMLS Destruction

In a blow to the library community, judge Richard J. Leon noted that both “the facts and the law” in the case are in flux and held that the ALA could therefore not make a showing that it was likely to prevail on the merits.

Words & MoneyAndrew Richard Albanese

While ALA reps this week heralded the end of the litigation and the saving of the IMLS, the future of the agency remains uncertain.

While the IMLS has been dropped, as of press time the DOJ’s appeal of McConnell’s decision is going forward in the First Circuit as it relates to the attempted closures of several other agencies targeted in Trump’s March 14 executive order.

On April 6, DOJ lawyers filed their appeal brief in the case, which largely relies on the same unsuccessful legal arguments presented to the district court.

If that appeal is ultimately successful, could it embolden the administration to once again attempt to gut the IMLS in a future order?

More urgently, in its most recent budget proposal the Trump administration once again proposed the elimination of the IMLS.

"This fight is not finished. While we celebrate these victories in court, IMLS’ important programs will only continue if Congress funds them," Helmick wrote to members, thanking them for their support and urging them to call their Senators.

There is also the question of how the IMLS might function in the Trump administration. A recent report in ProPublica found significant concerns about the potential political tilt of the Trump administration's IMLS non-LSTA grants.

"In cover letters accompanying [grant] applications, the institute said it 'particularly welcomes' projects that align with President Donald Trump’s vision for America," ProPublica report noted. "The solicitation marks a stark departure for the agency, whose guidelines were previously apolitical and focused on merit."

This story has been updated.