A State Stands Up for Its Libraries
National Library Week kicked off with a jolt in California this year. Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta unveiled a lawsuit against the Trump administration, reacting to a sudden halt in millions of dollars in federal grants meant for the state’s libraries. The move follows an executive order that dismantled the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), a federal agency tasked with supporting libraries and museums nationwide. For Californians, the stakes are high, libraries are more than just buildings with books; they’re lifelines to education, technology, and community connection.
The legal battle centers on Executive Order No. 14238, signed by President Trump, which critics say oversteps authority by shuttering agencies like the IMLS without Congressional approval. California’s libraries, which serve 39 million people across 1,127 branches, relied on $15.7 million from IMLS to fund everything from summer reading for kids to career training for adults. With over 21 percent of that money still undelivered, the state argues the cuts threaten vital services, especially for those who need them most.
What’s at Risk on the Ground
Libraries in California do heavy lifting for communities. Programs like the Braille and Talking Book Library give visually impaired residents free access to audio books and magazines, while the Career Online High School helps adults earn diplomas through local branches. IMLS funds also back digital literacy efforts, homework help, and meal programs for kids during summer breaks. If the funding dries up, staff cuts and program closures loom large, hitting rural and low-income areas hardest where local budgets can’t pick up the slack.
The ripple effects stretch beyond California. Nationwide, the IMLS distributed over $200 million annually to libraries, supporting rural internet access, workforce readiness, and early literacy in states like Illinois and Washington. Advocates for library services warn that losing this federal lifeline could widen gaps in education and digital access, particularly for families already stretched thin. Yet, the Trump administration defends the cuts, arguing they align with a broader push to trim federal oversight and shift responsibilities to states.
A Broader Fight Over Power and Purpose
This isn’t just about libraries; it’s a clash over who controls public resources. The Trump administration’s move draws from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint to scale back federal agencies and devolve power to states. Supporters of the plan say it’s about efficiency, cutting red tape, and letting local governments tailor solutions. Opponents, including California’s legal team and 20 other states in the lawsuit, call it an illegal power grab, pointing to the Administrative Procedure Act and recent Supreme Court rulings like Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which demand clearer Congressional backing for such sweeping changes.
History offers some clues here. Federal library funding took root with acts like the Library Services Act of 1956, expanding access in underserved areas. Over decades, political winds shifted support; Johnson’s Great Society boosted libraries, while later administrations eyed cuts. Today’s fight echoes those debates, balancing federal reach against local control. Meanwhile, libraries adapt, some turning to private partners like AT&T, which has poured $2.7 million into digital literacy workshops across 42 states in 2025, training thousands in skills from cybersecurity to video calls.
Voices From the Frontlines
For those who rely on libraries, the stakes feel personal. In Timberland, Washington, libraries serve 65,000 low-income residents with free wi-fi, job help, and early learning programs. In California, parents lean on summer reading to keep kids sharp, while seniors tap digital navigators to manage telehealth. Library leaders argue these services aren’t luxuries; they’re essentials for leveling the playing field. Yet, voices backing the administration’s cuts insist states and private groups can step up, citing overburdened federal budgets and a need for leaner government.
Where the Battle Leads
California’s lawsuit, joined by states from New York to Hawaii, marks its 12th legal challenge to Trump policies. It’s a high-stakes gamble, leaning on courts to unravel the executive order and restore IMLS funding. Legal experts say the case could hinge on whether judges see the agency’s closure as arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act, a law born in 1946 to check federal overreach. Win or lose, the outcome will shape how libraries nationwide weather this storm, testing their resilience against political and financial headwinds.
The bigger picture lingers over every branch and bookshelf. Libraries have long been battlegrounds for access and equity, from Depression-era book wagons to today’s hotspot lending. As California fights, the question isn’t just about dollars; it’s about what communities stand to lose, or gain, in a tug-of-war over public good. For now, library doors stay open, but the tension crackles, a reminder of how fragile, and fierce, these spaces can be.