Libraries are cutting back on staff and services after Trump's order to dismantle small agency

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Independent

Sunday 18 May 2025 05:31 BST


Libraries across the United States are cutting back on e-books, audiobooks and loan programs after the Trump administration suspended millions of dollars in federal grants as it tries to dissolve the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Federal judges have issued temporary orders to block the Trump administration from taking any further steps toward gutting the agency. But the unexpected slashing of grants has delivered a significant blow to many libraries, which are reshuffling budgets and looking at different ways to raise money.

Maine has laid off a fifth of its staff and temporarily closed its state library after not receiving the remainder of its annual funding. Libraries in Mississippi have indefinitely stopped offering a popular e-book service, and the South Dakota state library has suspended its interlibrary loan program.

E-book and audiobook programs are especially vulnerable to budget cuts, even though those offerings have exploded in popularity since the COVID-19 pandemic. “I think everyone should know the cost of providing digital sources is too expensive for most libraries," said Cindy Hohl, president of the American Library Association. “It’s a continuous and growing need.” Library officials caught off guard by Trump's cuts. President Donald Trump issued an executive order March 14 to dismantle the IMLS before firing nearly all of its employees.

Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/maine-donald-trump-libraries-united-states-south-dakota-b2753130.html

---

The continued dumbing down of America to be replaced with RW loon "information".

[NickB79]

1. I've had a running battle on Facebook with my old school librarian

She's conservative, from our very small town, but she taught my dad, uncles, and me to love reading as kids, and ran both the school and town library before retiring, so we're still friends. She assured me that the cuts wouldn't be THAT bad. I disagreed vehemently, because I remember all the fund raising drives she personally organized to keep our libraries funded.

I just posted this to Facebook to see her reaction.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Unfortunately

there are many many (probably the majority) who pooh-pooh what they think is nothing more than "hubris" and "hair-on-fire" reactions from those who warned about what was about to happen - basically along the line of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

But unfortunately in that parable, one day the wolf DOES appear and gets the sheep, and we have arrived at that day. And people are caught completely off-guard and sit there stunned into silence like deer-in-headlights or may utter a weak "Buh buh buh.. I didn't think it would... ".

And this outcome is just sad. They end up in a complete stupor trying to process it while the damage continues. You see that type of blubbering reaction reflected in the interviews of those impacted that appear in various articles.

I am hoping that eventually they "snap out of it" and seek revenge at the ballot box.

[AZLD4Candidate]

3. In Nazi Germany, many Germans never thought Hitler would be what he became and when he did, it was too late

Am I violating Godwin's Law?

[BumRushDaShow]

4. We are literally living through

how it happens. And back then, they had nowhere near the types and quantity of media that we have today (which makes it worse today because of the constant drumbeat of misinformation coming from everywhere).

Godwin recently "modified" his stance on his "law" via a WaPo Editorial.

Yes, it’s okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don’t let me stop you.

December 20, 2023

By Mike Godwin

Mike Godwin is an attorney and author in Washington.


My very minor status as an authority on Adolf Hitler comparisons stems from having coined “Godwin’s Law” about three decades ago. I originally framed this “law” as a pseudoscientific postulate: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” (That is, its likelihood approaches 100 percent.) I first offered this axiom in 1990 as an observation about the discussions that had expanded like algal blooms in the nascent ecologies of online newsgroups.

But within a handful of years, the law had taken on a life of its own, leaping beyond the internet and reaching into our broader popular culture. I felt vindicated because I had designed Godwin’s Law to be viral — to self-propagate among internet users. I had a theory that an individual could have a positive effect on culture by making a catchy joke about people’s worst tendencies toward rhetorical excess. The next step was to release the joke into the wild, then hope others found it clever or funny enough to be worth repeating.

Years after I’d let Godwin’s Law run free, I learned that an actual political philosopher, Leo Strauss, had made a somewhat similar remark a few years before I was born about debates trending toward Hitler. Strauss (whom I confess I still haven’t read) chose to classify Hitler comparisons as a special instance of a particular logical fallacy: reductio ad Hitlerum. He was right about that, but he also missed how funny such an inappropriate comparison might be. The sitcom writers of “Seinfeld” didn’t miss the goofiness — consider their “Soup Nazi.” Similarly, I loved Mel Brooks’s subversion of Hitler in “The Producers” when I discovered it as a kid in the 1960s.

But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy. And that’s why Godwin’s Law isn’t violated — or confirmed — by the Biden reelection campaign’s criticism of Trump’s increasingly unsubtle messaging. We had the luxury of deriving humor from Hitler and Nazi comparisons when doing so was almost always hyperbole. It’s not a luxury we can afford anymore.

(snip)

[usaf-vet]

5. All part of the purposeful plan to dumb down the electorate so the will continue to believe what ever bullshit....

..... 45 feed them. The dumber the better is the plan.

[k_buddy762]

6. I have been buying and collecting books

for 40+ years now. Thousands, probably over 10,000 at this point. Someday politics or AI is going to try to re-write world and national history, and REAL BOOKS will hold the truth.

[joanbarnes]

7. I am so fortunate to have one of the top 10 national libraries in my county.......

I feared tRump would do this. I use the library for EVERYTHING! Shelter and charging during our frequent power outages, free books, movies, streaming, wifi hotspot. I have yet to use ebooks, telescope, musical instruments, puzzles, games. I always do the reading challenges and have earned several practical swag gifts, still trying for the big prize. They provide after school shelter and lunch for school kids and multiple learning and crafting seminars and programs. My daughter enjoyed her best part time job at the library during her college years. This single asset to our community is what makes America great. I am glad my property taxes support them and if I have to on retirement income, I will subsidize the library.

[SupportSanity]

8. I live near a great library and am frequently there.

The day I heard about Trump and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, I posted it here.

Then I called my library and asked how I could donate to them. They gave me instructions using a website.

Later on I remember seeing that there was some legal action to stop the dismantling of the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

But I haven't seen anything since. I really haven't been following this closely ( I know I should be, but .....)

Did they lose a court case?

And on that list to defund Institute of Museum and Library Services, there was a list of approximately 10 other institutions on the chopping block.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. There are 2 cases that I could find being tracked

from here - https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

State of Rhode Island v. Trump (D.R.I.)

Case No. 1:25-cv-00128 Complaint 2025-04-04

Overview: The attorneys general of 21 states sued to challenge an Executive Order (EO) drastically cutting multiple small agencies. They argue that the EO violates Constitutional limits on presidential authority and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court has temporarily blocked the government’s action.

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14238, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” which drastically reduces funding and staffing at the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services (FMCS). The attorneys general of 21 states sued, alleging that the actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to constitutional rights and contrary to law as it violates the notice-and-comments requirements, the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, Appropriations Clause, and separation of powers protections as well as the Impoundment Control Act by seeking to eliminate agencies without Congressional action. They seek to have the administration’s actions declared unlawful and unconstitutional and the issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions reversing the steps taken to eliminate the agencies and preventing further such actions.

Update 1: On Apr. 4, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Defendants from implementing Executive Order 14,238 as it relates to the IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS, pending review of the case on the merits.

Update 2: On Apr. 9, Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly filed a stipulation converting Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO to a motion for a preliminary injunction and setting a timeline for further responses to the motion.

Update 3: On Apr. 14, Defendants filed a memorandum opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for an emergency TRO, asserting that Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on any of their claims.

Update 4: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs filed a reply supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction, reasserting that Defendants’ actions in closing the agencies violated the APA and Constitutional separation-of-powers provisions.

Update 5: On May 6, Judge John McConnell granted a preliminary injunction. 2025-05-06

-------------------------

American Library Association v. Sonderling et al

Case No. 1:25-cv-01050 Complaint 2025-04-07

Overview: The American Library Association and the union for public employees sued the administration to challenge an Executive Order (EO) dismantling the Institute of Museum and Library Services. They argue that the EO violates Constitutional limits on presidential authority and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court has temporarily blocked the government’s action.

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14238, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” which calls for the elimination of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and instructs the agency to “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law” while instructing the Office of Management and Budget to reject funding requests from the agency. Following the promulgation of the EO, employees from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) terminated nearly all of IMLS’s staff and began canceling grants, while Acting IMLS Director Keith Sonderling fired all 23 members of the National Museum and Library Services Board. Plaintiffs, including a nonprofit membership organization promoting library access and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, allege that the actions violate the Constitution’s Take Care Clause and separation of powers protections by seeking to eliminate agencies without Congressional action, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Impoundment Control Act, the Appropriations Act, and MLSA §203 (a) which established IMLS as an independent agency.. They seek to have the administration’s actions declared unlawful and unconstitutional and the issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions reversing the steps taken to eliminate the IMLS and preventing further such actions.

Update 1: On Apr. 10, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to cease actions taken to dissolve the IMLS while the court considers the case. Plaintiffs also filed a memorandum in support of their motion reasserting their arguments that the administration’s actions toward IMLS violate the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Update 2: On Apr. 21, Defendants filed an opposition brief to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing, that their claims should be heard in a different court or administrative body, and that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their statutory and constitutional claims.

Update 3: On Apr. 28, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs argued that they have standing, have filed their claims in the right court, and that they have shown a likelihood of success on the merits for their statutory and constitutional claims.

Update 4: On May 1, Judge Richard Leon granted a temporary restraining order.
20

[SupportSanity]

10. Thank you very much for researching. So it looks

like TRO is the word for now.

I’ll start keeping an eye out for updates.

Thanks again

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Most welcome!

I think it was DUer LetMyPeopleVote who alerted me to that lawsuit tracking site!!