President Donald Trump has successfully pressured the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) into adopting new guidelines — and some officials feel that they amount to ideological loyalty tests.
The official letter emphasizes "uplifting and positive narratives of our shared American experience" but also instructs “improper ideology” be scrubbed from federal cultural institutions, according to a report by The Washington Post. Because the IMLS distributes grants to museums and libraries, they have the power to make both personnel and curatorial choices. As such, all references to "inclusive," "equity," and "diverse" or "diversity" have been removed from the IMLS’ recent 13 grant notices, even though they were previously commonplace in competitive applications. On some occasions, it has forced people out of the funding process.
"It feels like organizations like ours are boxed out from telling a complete and true and honest American story,” explained Ashley Rogers, executive director of the Whitney Plantation in New Orleans. Because of what Rogers does for a living, it is practically impossible for her to request grant money while remaining consistent with the administration’s standards.
"Our mission is to educate the public about the history and legacies of slavery,” Rogers told the Post. “We're a nonprofit. This is the only thing we do. I don't know how to make that align with the current funding opportunities at IMLS and more fundamentally than that, if I did, would I be betraying my mission?"
Lori Byrd, a former museum professional and IMLS grant reviewer, expressed a similar concern more broadly.
"If you even apply for this, are you going to get pushback from either your museum community or your fellow museum professionals because you're kind of caving to the administration?" Byrd asked. Museum consultant Andrea Jones made the same point when talking about her own professional responsibilities.
"Not only is the risk to my livelihood too great … but I care about doing credible, nuanced work — not being part of a propaganda machine,” Jones said.
Because of the uncertainty caused by the Trump administration’s approach, the IMLS grant cycle is already months behind schedule, The Post reported. Nor are Trump’s loyalty tests merely harming museums and libraries. A retired high-ranking military officer explained in a conservative publication that Trump’s policies are doing the same thing to America’s armed forces.
"The implications are immediate and corrosive," Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling wrote in The Bulwark earlier this week. "If promotions to general officer rank can be rescinded for perceived associations with others, officers may begin to prioritize 'safe' assignments or noncontroversial bosses. Candor — already fragile in large bureaucracies — may diminish if officers fear that honest service under controversial leaders will later be used against them. The apolitical ethic that underpins the profession of arms risks erosion."
Hertling added, "The Army's strength has always rested on trust: trust that performance matters more than patronage, that merit outweighs politics, and that the institution protects those who serve honorably in any job they are assigned. Undermining that trust does not merely harm an officer's career; it weakens the foundation of professional military service."
Loyalty oaths are not just in libraries, museums and the military. The US economy itself could be at risk because of Trump’s loyalty oaths, as evidenced by the controversy over National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett calling for Federal Reserve officers to be “disciplined” for issuing a report which showed Trump’s tariffs are hurting ordinary Americans.
“In the end, Mr. Trump’s decision evinced both the risk and reward for an economist whose previous views had morphed in service of the White House and its economic agenda," The New York Times recently reported. "The president did not want to lose one of his most forceful champions, whose full-throated advocacy had won deep praise from Mr. Trump but had fueled fears that Mr. Hassett could not guide monetary policy while resisting political influence.”