
Stephanie R. Toliver: Don't stay silent. Libraries need support now.
I remember walking into my local library as a child, breathing in that distinct scent of books and possibility. The tall shelves, the peaceful atmosphere, the librarians who seemed to know exactly what book might capture my imagination. These experiences shaped my understanding of what it means to be part of a community that values knowledge.
Now, these foundational institutions face a serious threat as President Donald Trump has issued an executive order targeting the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the federal agency that provides critical support to libraries nationwide.
The IMLS, with its annual budget of approximately $300 million, represents a minuscule fraction of federal spending, yet its impact on communities nationwide is immeasurable. This institution has been the backbone supporting libraries and museums as they adapt to serve the evolving needs of Americans, particularly in underserved communities where access to information and educational resources can be transformative.
This year, there are an estimated 124,903 libraries in the United States, including close to 100,000 school libraries and an estimated 17,278 public libraries. When the pandemic forced many Americans into isolation, libraries pivoted immediately. A 2024 study showed that the IMLS distributed funds to libraries through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
With this money, libraries could meet evolving community needs, including expanding digital services and ensuring communities maintained access to vital information. As many institutions transitioned online, libraries expanded digital services, added virtual programs and provided resources for those who lost jobs during the upheaval.
Even without national crises, libraries remain steadfast in their commitment to community support. A Public Library Association survey found that the majority of public libraries offer election services, and almost all libraries have summer reading programs.
More than 75% provide career services, and half have special designations for emergencies, 'serving as cooling/warming centers in extreme temperatures, distribution centers during public health emergencies, and/or centers for community members and first responders during disaster recovery.'
To be sure, proponents of the executive order may argue that budget constraints necessitate difficult decisions about federal spending priorities. Some may contend that library services could be funded primarily at local levels or through private philanthropy.
This perspective ignores the role that federal support plays in ensuring equitable access to information across all communities, regardless of their tax base or donor networks.
The digital divide remains a significant barrier for millions of Americans, making physical libraries more essential than ever for those without reliable internet access or digital literacy skills.
The executive order's directive to reduce the IMLS to 'the minimum presence and function required by law' isn't a budget cut. It's an assault on the democratic principle that information and cultural resources should be available to all Americans, regardless of geography, economic status or background.
As a former high school English teacher and now a university English educator, I've always believed that libraries represent the best of American values: equal opportunity, community support and the belief that knowledge should be accessible to all.
I've witnessed firsthand how they transform lives: the senior citizen learning digital skills to stay connected with grandchildren, the teenager spending hours in the library because they feel safe, the entrepreneur using library resources to launch a small business, the child discovering the joy of reading during story time.
What makes libraries unique in American society is their unwavering commitment to serving everyone equally. They ask nothing of patrons except curiosity. They demand no payment beyond the promise to return what was borrowed. They exist purely to enrich, inform and connect communities. In return, they ask only for sufficient resources to continue this essential work.
Libraries have always stood ready to help Americans navigate challenges, from economic downturns to technological revolutions to pandemics. They have evolved from simple book repositories to complex community anchors offering job training, digital literacy, civic engagement opportunities and safe spaces for vulnerable populations.
Now is the time to reciprocate this unwavering support. Just as libraries have consistently stood up for the right of every American to access information and opportunity, we must now stand up for them.
It is critical to contact elected representatives, so they receive the input from citizens on support for libraries and opposition to this executive order. It is necessary to share personal stories of how libraries have affected individuals and communities.
It is critical to support local library funding initiatives through advocacy and votes and to visit local library libraries regularly. Support for national organizations such as the American Library Association is also needed as they advocate for library funding at the federal level.
Each time I walk into my local library today, I'm reminded of that first library card and the world it opened for me. By taking action now, it is possible to ensure that future generations will have the same opportunities. By honoring an institution that has defended access to knowledge, opportunity and community for generations, the future is more secure.
Libraries have always had our backs. It's time we had theirs.
Stephanie R. Toliver is an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
GOP lawmakers stick with Trump in messy Musk breakup
Amid the messy ongoing divorce between the president and the world's richest man, this much is already clear: Donald Trump has sole custody of the House GOP. Republican lawmakers are making clear that, if forced to choose, it's Trump — not Elon Musk — they're sticking by as leaders race to contain the fallout for their 'one big, beautiful bill.' Even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who helms a House panel inspired by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency initiative, blasted Musk's public attacks on Trump as 'unwarranted' and criticized his 'lashing out on the internet.' 'America voted for Donald Trump on Nov. 4, 2024 — every single vote mattered just as much as the other,' Greene said in a brief interview. 'And whether it was $1 that was donated or hundreds of millions of dollars, the way I see it, everybody's the same.' Like many Americans, GOP members watched Thursday's online exchange with a sense of car-crash-like fascination. Many shared that they hoped Musk and Trump could somehow patch things up. But many — including some of the former DOGE chief's biggest backers on Capitol Hill — were wholly unsurprised to see the billionaire suddenly cut down to size after months of chatter about who was really calling the shots at the White House. 'It's President Trump, not President Musk,' said one lawmaker granted anonymity to speak frankly about prevailing opinions inside the House GOP. Speaker Mike Johnson made no secret of where he stands on the public breakup. He told reporters Friday that he hoped the two men 'reconcile' and that it would be 'good for the party and the country if all this worked out.' But in the nearly same breath, Johnson quickly reaffirmed his allegiance to the president and issued a warning to Musk. 'Do not doubt, do not second-guess and don't ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump,' Johnson said. 'He is the leader of the party. He is the most consequential political figure of this generation and probably the modern era. And he's doing an excellent job for the people.' Other House Republicans concurred with the speaker's assessment Friday, even as they faced the looming threat of Musk targeting them in the upcoming midterms or at least pulling back on his political giving after pouring more than $250 million into the 2024 election on behalf of Trump and the GOP ticket. 'I think it's unfortunate,' said Rep. Tim Moore (R-N.C.) of the breakup. 'But Donald Trump was elected by a majority of the American people.' Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, who was one of only two Republicans to oppose Trump's megabill in the House last month, also made clear he stood with the president over Musk. 'He does not have a flight mode — he's fight, fight, fight … and he's been pretty measured,' Davidson said of Trump. 'I think Elon Musk looked a little out of control. And hopefully he gets back and grounded.' GOP leaders who have spent weeks cajoling their members to vote for the sprawling domestic-policy bill hardly hid their feelings as Musk continued to bash the legislation online, even calling on Americans to call their representatives in an effort to tank it. 'Frankly, it's united Republicans even more to go and defend the great things that are in this bill — and once it's passed and signed into law by August, September, you're going to see this economy turning around like nothing we've ever seen,' Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in a brief interview Friday. 'I'll be waiting for all those people who said the opposite to admit that they were wrong,' Scalise added. 'But I'm not expecting that to happen.' A few Republicans are still trying to walk a fine line by embracing both Trump and Musk — especially some fiscal hawks who believe Musk is right about the megabill adding trillions to the national debt. 'I think Elon has some valid points about the bill, concerns that myself and a handful of others were working to address up until the passage of it,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) said in an interview. 'I think that'll make the bill stronger. I think it'll help our standing with the American people.' Both Trump and Musk 'have paid a tremendous price personally for this country,' Cloud added. 'And them working together is certainly far better for the country.' Notably, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, a key Musk ally on the Hill, declined to engage Thursday when asked about the burgeoning feud. Instead, the Ohio Republican responded by praising the megabill Musk had moved to tank. Democrats, for their part, watched the unfolding and public breakup with surprise and a heavy dose of schadenfreude. 'There are no good guys in a fight like this,' Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.). 'You just eat some popcorn and watch the show.'


New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
Beware: The Human Rights Campaign is just a scam to push lefty issues
Why does Uber make videos where people say, 'I'm non-binary or genderqueer'? And why does Lockheed Martin fund floats at Pride parades? Because companies want to raise their score on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index. Equality is a good thing. I support human rights. But the Human Rights Campaign? That's something else. 'They have nothing to do with actual human rights,' says Robby Starbuck. 'They're an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization that pushes topics about transgenderism into the workplace.' Starbuck uses his social-media following to criticize the many companies that partner with the Human Rights Campaign. The campaign 'does great harm,' he says, because companies that want a high score must do things like pay for trans employees' gender reassignment surgery and fund puberty blockers for employees' kids. I push back, 'I know people who've had the surgery, and they seem happier!' 'If you're an adult and you make a set of decisions I disagree with, that's your prerogative,' replies Starbuck. 'I don't want to give my money to a company that's going to use it to fund any sex changes of any child.' People can debate the age when you're considered competent to medically change your gender. What surprises me is how many companies suck up to the Human Rights Campaign by paying for it. Google even brags about providing a 'trans liaison' to help people transition. Even some of your Amtrak tax subsidy goes to pay for this stuff. Amtrak's 'Lead Environmental Specialist' touts 'education on personal pronouns.' To raise their Corporate Equality Index scores, companies are encouraged to donate to LGBTQ+ groups — like the Human Rights Campaign! That helps the campaign collect millions in tax-free money. The more I looked at the organization, the less it seems to be about human rights, and the more it seems to be about left-wing advocacy. Its homepage features protesters holding signs saying, 'I will aid and abet abortion.' When I point that out to Starbuck, he says, 'Yeah, which humans? Which rights? Apparently, if you're a small enough human, you don't have rights.' The campaign's president says its Corporate Equality Index is 'about partnership with businesses to make workplaces as inclusive as possible for LGBTQ+ people.' But today, most businesses are inclusive, and in America, LGBT people are more accepted than ever. Twenty years ago, 37% of Americans supported gay marriage; 45% said gay relationships are moral. Today, support for gay marriage is at 69% and 64% consider gay relationships moral. Yet, as life gets better for LGBT people, the Human Rights Campaign declared a 'national state of emergency for LGBTQ+ Americans!' 'This is a crisis right now!' said HRC president Kelley Robinson. I think I know why she said that. If activists acknowledge that Americans have come to accept LGBT people, the campaign might go out of business. One HRC executive says, 'We are never going to reach a destination.' Of course not. There's money to be made and leftist propaganda that needs spreading. Starbuck, by pointing out what the HRC really does, has persuaded some companies to stop sucking up. Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe's, Molson Coors, Toyota, Tractor Supply, Walmart and others announced that they will no longer participate in the Index. 'We came along and told people the story and they backtracking began,' says Starbuck. The campaign's president says, 'What we're seeing from these companies is short-sighted.' Maybe. Businesses can join whatever lists they want, but they ought to do what's good for their business. That means listening to customers, not progressive activists. 'At the end of the day,' says Starbuck, 'that's all people want, is for businesses to do their business. Not to virtue signal . . . or to perpetuate a political ideology.' John Stossel is the author of 'Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.'


Washington Post
22 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump's new drone orders aim to counter threats while encouraging flying cars and supersonic flights
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump wants to counter the threats drones pose to national security under new rules released Friday, while also aiming to make it easier for Americans to fly faster than the speed of sound and expedite the development of the flying cars of the future. The three executive orders will encourage the Federal Aviation Administration to expedite rules to allow companies to use drones beyond their operators' line of sight, while also imposing restrictions meant to help protect against terrorism, espionage and public safety threats.