How federal cuts could impact San Antonio museums, libraries
Why it matters: The cultural institutions rely on federal money to meet their mission.
Catch up quick: In a March 14 executive order, President Trump named the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) as one of seven agencies that should be "eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law."
The latest: The institute on Monday put its entire staff on administrative leave for 90 days after a meeting with DOGE staff, NPR reported.
Follow the money: The IMLS' largest program, called Grants to States, disburses roughly $160 million annually to state library agencies, including $12.5 million in fiscal year 2024 to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission (TSLAC).
The federal grant makes up a third of the state agency's total budget.
Per a request from the state agency reviewed by Axios, the 2024 money was earmarked for literacy and workforce readiness programs as well as to help train librarians.
By the numbers: San Antonio museums and libraries have collectively received more than $2 million in federal support since fiscal year 2020.
Zoom in: The Witte Museum has received a $250,000 grant from the agency to better care for 50,000 artifacts from its Texas History Collection, which includes furniture, ceramics, musical instruments and fashion accessories.
What they're saying: "We have hopes that with the success of these IMLS-funded projects, we can continue this work to make our collection accessible to ourselves, but also to other researchers, and to make sure we're stewarding our collection for the future," Witte Museum CEO Michelle Everidge told the Express-News.
"Something obviously really critical to museum work is making sure that we're keeping the community's memories and their treasures for the future."
Other San Antonio institutions impacted by the IMLS include:
The DoSeum — $250,000 each in fiscal years 2022 and 2024 for two traveling exhibitions — one to teach kids skills for the future and another called "Understanding Race and Building Unity."
The University of Texas at San Antonio Libraries and Museum — more than $240,000 in fiscal year 2022 to digitize and catalog at-risk audiovisual items from the Institute of Texan Cultures.
Artpace — $50,000 in fiscal year 2022 for a paid, after-school program for high school students to learn about careers in the arts.
The Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, Bexar County's BiblioTech and the Army Medical Department Museum Foundation have also received funds since fiscal year 2020.
Friction point: The IMLS' governing board issued a letter that explained its programs "cannot be paused, reduced, or eliminated without violating Congressional intent and federal statute."
Between the lines: The elimination of the IMLS could lead to "devastation for museums, libraries and archives everywhere," Gabriel Solis, executive director for the Texas After Violence Project, tells Axios.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump: 'I Would Walk' if Talks Don't Go Well
President Trump told Fox News he would walk away from the Alaska summit if the peace negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin don't go well. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
24 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters to the Editor: Only smart move is for Naperville to extend IMEA contract; Trump's tariffs on India amount to bullying a friend
The Naperville City Council is facing a critical deadline Tuesday when it must decide whether to renew or reject a contract extension with the Illinois Municipal Electricity Agency to be the city's energy supply for another 20 years. IMEA is the nonprofit organization with which Naperville and 31 other communities have partnered for many years. If the amended contract is ratified, Naperville will secure a stable and affordable electric supply for future years. If rejected, it will be necessary for the city to purchase electricity on the open market from companies driven by profit. This will undoubtedly result in significantly higher prices, especially if only zero carbon options are chosen. The rush to zero carbon premium energy is shortsighted because IMEA power plants will continue to operate for the community members that renew the contract. IMEA opponents will not shut down the coal power plants but they will burden Naperville with runaway electric costs. Naperville also will forfeit the accumulated power plant bond payments estimated at $650 million to date and give up the reduced electric rates that will result from the construction bonds paid off by 2035. A provision option tied to the extended contract allows Naperville to utilize the Member Directed Resource (MDR) to purchase 26% of its energy from zero carbon suppliers. In addition, this provision can be 'moved forward' immediately into the current contract. This is an opportunity to supplement the current energy profile with 26% of zero carbon sourcing. The uncertainty of green energy capacity, rising electric demand due to expanding AI centers and higher projected green energy costs create a very volatile market. This can all be avoided by re-signing with the IMEA, an action that will keep costs stable, provide a consistent electric supply and avoid spot market chaos by dealing with power marketers offering profit-motivated electric supply options. I encourage the Naperville City Council to approve the IMEA contract extension so we can maintain a reliable power grid and provide fiscally responsible costs for residents while transitioning toward greener energy options.U.S. President Donald Trump's additional 25% tariff on India for buying Russian oil brings the total tariff amount to 50%. But the fact is the United States also did about $3.5 billion worth of trade with Russia in 2024. How is this not helping Russia fund its war in Ukraine? With Trump's tariffs, the price of generic medicines, clothes and food from India will increase in America. How will small businesses in both countries survive such high tariffs? Trump is not putting additional tariffs on China for buying Russian oil because he does not want to strain relations with China. Then why is Trump doing it with India? India and the U.S. have been allies since President George Washington's time. Trump has said that India is friends with the United States. So then why is he being a bully to India?
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trade deals don't make Trump's emergency tariffs legal
President Trump has taken an expansive view of his authority to levy tariffs in his second term trade war with nearly every U.S. trading partner. Calling on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs at rates not seen since the 1930s, claiming to address a national emergency caused by fentanyl trafficked across the border and persistent trade deficits. Defending those actions, on Monday, Trump's Justice Department entered an extraordinary letter into the tariff litigation now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will soon issue a ruling. That letter points to a recurrent theme in Trump's trade approach, a weak legal foundation for his actions papered over with an even more flimsy rationale for preserving it. The letter from Solicitor General D. John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate claims that President Trump's July announcement of 'the largest trade agreement in history' with the European Union, plus other recent deals with Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and the United Kingdom, proved the tariffs should stay in place. That argument might make for a good press release. But in a court of law, it's entirely beside the point. The central question before the court isn't whether the president's tariffs have produced diplomatic headlines (even though they don't amount to much). It's whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president the authority to impose them in the first place. Congress passed the act to give presidents a way to address genuine national emergencies, things like hostile foreign actions, espionage or terrorism — not as a catch-all to impose peacetime tariffs whenever it might create negotiating leverage. In fact, the U.S. Court of International Trade, whose decision to vacate Trump's tariffs is now under appeal, held that the government's argument for using tariffs to 'pressure' countries to address the proclaimed emergencies 'does not comfortably meet the statutory definition of 'dealing with' the cited emergency.' It reached that stance because the argument would allow the president 'to take whatever actions he chooses simply by declaring them 'pressure' or 'leverage' tactics' to extract concessions unconnected to the declared threat. The Justice Department continues to push for an expansive reading of the president's authority to levy tariffs. But the letter takes this a step further. It offers a string of doomsday predictions: Without international emergency powers tariffs, 'trillions of dollars' from other countries won't be paid, the U.S. could see a '1929-style result,' millions might lose their homes and jobs, even Social Security and Medicare could be 'threatened.' That's not legal analysis. It's fearmongering. And it's untethered from any evidence in the record. Most of the so-called deals are not even written down, or available to review. Of the announcements made on the content of those deals, serious questions have been raised about the level of commitments, and their durability. Furthermore, the promised investment may not even be possible, and contradict the president's goal of lowering the trade deficit, which is central to his actions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It also contradicts the Justice Department's previous arguments for a stay of the lower court's ruling, claiming that the government could refund the tariffs if it lost the appeal. Even if the deals the president cites were, in fact, secured because of these tariffs, it still wouldn't make them legal. You don't get to break the law to make a deal, then point to the deal as proof the law should bend to fit your actions. That's bootstrapping, plain and simple. Nor is it true that the U.S. has no other trade tools at its disposal. There are various other trade authorities that the president could lean on. The president could also negotiate actual trade agreements with the support of Congress. The irony is that the Justice Department's own letter inadvertently proves the critics' point. If the president believes these tariffs are so essential, he should ask Congress for the authority to impose them. That's how the separation of powers works. In the meantime, the courts are there to ensure that even the most popular, politically expedient or 'powerful' policy stays within legal bounds. Tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were never legal. No amount of retroactive dealmaking can change that. Grasping at straws for a new rationale for Trump's self-inflicted tariff wound adds insult to that injury. The Court of Appeals should not be swayed by this desperate appeal. A clear and decisive ruling against the tariffs is necessary to stop further abuses of executive authority on trade, otherwise, this version of 'emergency powers' will become the new normal in U.S. trade law, and Americans will pay the price, not just in their wallets.
