Inside the “War on Libraries”

In a recent Newsjunkie article, President loses a battle in his war on libraries, publisher Gordon Whiting opined on a legal victory for libraries amid what he describes as a broader “war” on public knowledge institutions. Managing editor Peter Landau sat down with Whiting to discuss the role of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the meaning of the recent court decision, and what comes next for libraries, journalists, and the public.

In the article, you talk about the IMLS. Can you tell me what it is and what it does?

IMLS is the Institute for Museum and Library Services, and it is the largest and main federal agency for financial support, guidance, policy support, and training for libraries and museums. It’s a substantial operation—123,000 libraries across the country and 35,000 museums.

You frame this battle as a broader war on libraries. How do you define the scope of that war? What’s included and what’s not included?

I don’t know exactly what their strategy is, but they really don’t like the idea of free inquiry. The federal government under Donald Trump in this term, since he retook the White House and was inaugurated on the 20th of January, started immediately. It’s well known what DOGE did to various federal agencies, databases, and so forth, although it’s still not completely documented.

But libraries are also a concern to them. Libraries and universities—we got a lot of news about universities being throttled in various ways, essentially funding cuts for work they were doing mainly in the scientific and health sectors. What’s on their mind when they’re doing this?

Multiple things, certainly not least of which is just sheer intimidation of a power sector that isn’t them: “We can hurt you, and we’re going to.” That’s one aspect. Another aspect is ideology—that too much is eroding the American system and that all that “wokeness” is hurting us, and it’s in the libraries, it’s in the schools, it’s everywhere.

They’re going to just go for the jugular and shut that stuff down.

This was a win for the library system and for the American public, but how meaningful was it, structurally versus symbolically?

It’s very meaningful. The most important thing is that it shows he can’t get away with it, and that the system of justice does work—the system of justice that we’ve come to doubt.

They moved incredibly fast with terrific purpose. And to quote Mark Zuckerberg, “Move fast and break things,” and they certainly did. But now you have pushback, reinstating the staff and restoring the funds and activities of the agency.

That’s unequivocal. You can’t get away with it. Wheels may turn slowly—in this case, it was pretty fast, about a year.

The settlement, as you just said, restored funding and staff, but what does the case actually set for future executive actions?

They’re probably going to keep doing it. The thing is, they don’t have as many targets. Can they keep going through with the scimitar, lopping off the heads of the funding of agencies? Yeah, I guess so.

Then courts and lawsuits and advocates will push back and maybe win. But they’ve already taken some of the richest targets. What does it mean? I’m not sure they’re taking any lessons from it. I doubt it. I don’t see any evidence that they’re mending the error of their ways.

And what about from the other side? The legal strategy used by the American Library Association and AFSCME—could that be a blueprint for future actions by other agencies?

Sure. Every lawsuit has its differences, but in this case they basically said nothing changed in the mandate. The operation was doing what it was supposed to do.

The executive order is very interesting. It’s titled Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy, and it’s understood that the federal bureaucracy must continue to be reduced.

That’s a hobby horse of people who complain about bloat in government. And certainly there’s bloat in any organization, including the government. But bureaucracy is not a bad word. It’s not a bad concept—it’s become one.

Bureaucracy is there to be a counterweight to people like Donald Trump, to kings and monarchs, where someone in an ivory tower had a say over whether you could get a business license or move between municipalities. You had to get the favor of that authority.

Bureaucracy leveled that out so that both the powerful and the powerless had to go through the same system. Sure, it slowed things down. Sure, there are people who seem uninterested in your particular case. But that leveling effect was the point. That’s why it exists.

So this naming—Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy—and then it goes and lays waste to seven key organizations, including Voice of America and the Agency for Global Media.

Global media—that includes Radio Free Europe and also very interesting initiatives, including Open Internet. It’s part of the U.S. Agency for Global Media. What does it support? Efforts to counter censorship in places where it exists around the world. Efforts for an open internet, free access to the internet in troubled places.

That is exactly the kind of thing they don’t like—even here.

And so far we have open access to the internet, but even the wording in this initiative—how to circumvent censorship, how to beat governments that have their boot on the neck of the people—was deemed unnecessary.

It’s not just cutting libraries. It is a broad attack, and it’s ideologically driven. It’s not savings-driven. It uses “bureaucracy” as an evil term, because most people already think of it negatively. But in reality, it serves an important purpose in a democracy.

Getting back to the case itself, do you see the judgment as proof that legal safeguards work, or is it more of an anomaly?

I think there are a lot of reasons to be upset about our system, but it worked. So it can work. Let’s keep it working.

How does this case fit into the broader pattern of executive actions targeting cultural and knowledge institutions?

It’s a front-and-center assault. These institutions don’t exist to advance a corporate agenda—they exist as a public good, a public service.

Part of it is just to say, “We can do it.” There seems to be a kind of enjoyment in using the sledgehammer, showing that nothing is safe.

Do you think the administration expected to lose in court? Or was the goal something else entirely?

This is the funniest president, because by all reporting, he didn’t expect to win in 2016. He wasn’t ready and didn’t have a transition team. I think that informs everything.

They don’t think past tomorrow. They go on gut. Some people around him are more strategic—Russell Vought, Project 2025—but broadly, I think they just expected to do it and didn’t care what happened after.

Maybe they thought they would lose eventually. But if you move fast and break things, maybe you still accomplish what you wanted.

Why target libraries specifically?

You can’t have free and open exchange. Independent inquiry—where people can learn, explore, read history, read queer science fiction—that might be dangerous to them.

It’s probably also just opportunistic: “We can hurt them quickly. Let’s do it.”

The same executive order hit Voice of America. Why? I don’t know.

What are the long-term consequences of attacking these institutions—even if they win in court?

A lot of it is psychological—psych warfare.

People give up on access. Libraries close or shrink. Media outlets disappear. NPR and PBS get hit. People think, “What can I do about it?”

The field narrows. And when the field narrows, you don’t have to work as hard to control the message. Libraries help people get around that.

How does this connect to broader issues of public memory and access to information?

There’s a concerted effort to rewrite January 6th as a patriotic act, which is false.

To sell a lie, you have to cut off the truth. This is part of that strategy.

What surprised you while reporting this story?

It’s more commentary on other reporting. The Boston Herald had an excellent piece.

What stood out was the simplicity of the argument: “We didn’t do anything wrong.” The agency was functioning as mandated, and the court agreed.

It didn’t require complex legal maneuvering. That was refreshing.

What should journalists and the public be watching next?

There’s a DOJ memo suggesting the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional—that they don’t have to keep records anymore.

That’s a major issue. It allows them to shape the narrative.

There’s a lawsuit—American Historical Association v. Trump—challenging that. That’s something to watch.

What advice do you have for journalists and researchers right now?

Don’t give up. Rally people. Encourage letters, emails, calls.

Keep reporting. And mobilize people—because they do pay attention, especially when elections approach.

If you had to summarize the stakes of this story in one sentence, what would it be?

He can’t get away with it—not every time. That’s important to know. There will be a reckoning, and this is one piece of it.