This interview with Thomas Padilla was conducted at the end of May 2025.

Because the status of IMLS, as well as many other federally funded institutions, continues to be in flux, while every attempt was made to keep details as current as possible, we anticipate there will be changes, even shortly after publication.

1. Tell us a little bit about yourself and the work you do. 

I am a librarian, community builder, and technologist who has worked in a number of different kinds of organizations (e.g., academic libraries, national libraries, research library consortia, global nonprofit digital libraries). A good deal of my work has focused on fostering community capacity around responsible computational development and use of memory organization collections – think AI, data science, digital scholarship and so on. That work has entailed significant commitments to local, national, and international advocacy. 

These days I wear a couple of different hats. I am the founder of a consultancy called Bristlecone Strategy where I work with partners in cultural heritage, higher education, and government. I also work as the Public Interest AI Strategist for the Authors Alliance. With Authors Alliance specifically, I work on a Mellon Foundation supported project called The Public Interest Corpus. This is an effort to develop a practical, community-vested startup plan that provides a path for multi-organizational development of library, archive, and museum collection corpora that support public interest AI research and development as well as computational research more generally.  

2. Can you explain your work on IMLS Matters? (What inspired you to start it? What was your hope for the project?)

Like many working in libraries and higher education, I have found the last few months to be quite challenging. The Trump Administration is implementing a premeditated, comprehensive assault on our communities. Disciplinary researchers and students are being attacked. Librarians are being attacked directly and indirectly through things like proposed changes to Public Service Loan Forgiveness that rely on an ideological litmus test. The financial stability of our organizations is being attacked through attempts to revoke tax-exempt status and drastic, damaging reductions to indirect cost rates. 

As we know, the Trump Administration is also working to eliminate the sole source of Federal funding dedicated to libraries and museums. Thankfully a number of court cases are starting to weaken this part of the the administration’s effort to dismantle our country’s public interest information infrastructure. As a result, Institute of Museum and Library Services Staff (IMLS) have begun to return to office and some grants have been restored. Optimism about this change in status must be tempered by the fact that the Trump Administration has already filed an appeal. Optimism must be further tempered by the fact that the Trump Administration’s fiscal year 2026 budget request includes proposed elimination of IMLS, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. 

Some might argue that private philanthropy can fill the Federal funding gap for libraries, but that is simply not the case. Private philanthropic funding tends to be project or initiative based while Federal funding scales to all States and Territories, supporting a combination of operating costs and project-based costs. Significant portions of funding that appear to people throughout the country as State-funded efforts are actually funds that have long come to States via Federal funding from IMLS. 

Ending IMLS would be a multigenerational disaster.

My heart breaks for all the library school graduates going into a world without IMLS funding and those kinds of opportunities to allow them to take their careers to the next level.

Anonymous Federal Employee

On April 1, I started IMLS Matters, as a place for community members affected by the attack on IMLS to share stories of how IMLS matters to them. Rather than create another direct advocacy effort – both ALA and EveryLibrary had those bases covered – I thought it would be useful to create a space that fosters solidarity among our community using one of the oldest technologies we have – our stories. I hoped that pooling our stories would strengthen us as we work to fight while also creating a collective resource that helps communicate the impact of the attack on IMLS to a broader public. 

Within a couple of weeks more than 50 stories were submitted to the site from ~20 traditionally “red” and “blue” States. These stories help prove the non-partisan value of libraries and the work they do to advance an informed, thriving public. 

The attack on IMLS is an attempt to relegate our communities to a knowledge ecosystem that is forced to toe the line with the current administration’s often regressive prerogatives. It has been deeply disturbing to see the Trump Administration force removal of books from military libraries corresponding with 20 Library of Congress Subject Headings including but not limited to: Affirmative Action, Allyship, Anti-Racism, Critical Race Theory, Diversity in the Workplace, Gender Identity and so on. 

The stakes of actions like this become clearer when we consider what is being promoted in opposition to each of the above subject headings. What is the opposite of affirmative action? What is the opposite of allyship? What is the opposite of anti-racism? 

One can easily imagine that the administration would like to extend this kind of knowledge manipulation throughout the country. We cannot let that happen. 

Without IMLS, I fear that libraries won’t be able to afford the connectivity they need without significant cuts to other library services.

anon.

3. What has been the reaction/responses to the project? (From readers? From submitters? Your reaction to all of the responses?)

The response to IMLS Matters has been overwhelmingly positive. Some have shared that they shed tears while reading the stories. My sense is that those tears represent firm resolve to defend our community and the communities we serve. 

I think of committing effort to things like IMLS Matters as an attempt to “cast a spark in the dark”, which always feels a bit scary. 

Will people see the spark before it is lost to the night? Will they reach to grab it, cup it in their hands, and steward the spark from a flame to a fire that provides a measure of safety in difficult times? Time has shown that people have seen the spark and are using it to light lamps across the country. I feel good about that. 

Behind each IMLS grant is a story — that leads to more stories.

anon. (Kansas)

If you would like to read more about IMLS Matters, Katina Magazine kindly provided an opportunity to highlight some of the prevailing IMLS Matters story themes (e.g., catalyzing local impact, strengthening state library systems, ensuring knowledge preservation and access) in “No Longer Serves the Interest of the United States”: The Terminated Work of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. 

4. In this political environment, do you worry about bad actors trying to disrupt the gathering of these testimonies? 

The past few years have taught me to be less worried about bad actors, and focus instead on being prepared. When we worry endlessly about bad actors they win. We are better served by making sure we are prepared to do the work we need to do. 

5. Again, given the political climate, what steps have you taken to help protect anyone who shares their views? Are submitters able to do so anonymously? 

Good questions. The primary strategy I’ve adopted is to be open about my intent to publicly share these stories and to also allow anonymous submissions. I am deeply aware that it feels dangerous at this time to share, and each individual has a different threat calculation that they need to weigh as it pertains to their work, life, and wellbeing. For those able to do so, I encourage you to share your story at IMLS Matters. I encourage everyone to follow ALA’s advocacy work and voice their support for libraries to their representatives.