Learn about the Advocacy Committee
Please visit our Resources Page for financial, professional development, and other resources for cultural heritage workers.
A.R.T. Public Comment on Office of Management and Budget’s Proposed Rule “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” (91 FR 32198)
The Archivists Round Table of Metropolitan New York, Inc. (A.R.T.) is writing to express its opposition to OMB Docket OMB-2026-0034. A.R.T. is composed of nearly 400 cultural heritage workers representing a diversity of cultural and governmental institutions, collections, archives, libraries, museums, and historic sites in the New York metropolitan area. Cultural heritage organizations (which are overwhelming non-profits) utilize federal grant programs to further their missions to safeguard historical documentation and ensure that our nation’s history is accessible to the public. If implemented, this proposed rule would limit access to critical programs at IMLS, NEA, NEH, among others. We ask that OMB reconsider the proposed rule as it unduly impacts the institutions and organizations that A.R.T. represents, as well as the cultural heritage field at large. Some of our major concerns are outlined in our comments below.
Political Appointees Control Grant Awards Instead of Independent Peer-Reviewers (§200.205, §200.205(d))
The proposed changes would demote independent peer reviewers to an advisory role while requiring that senior political appointees (or their designees) preapprove all top proposals before awards are finalized. Unbiased and nonpartisan peer review has always been the bedrock of grantmaking in the historic and scientific communities. Political appointees should be encouraged to defer to peer reviewers who, as experts in their fields, are far better equipped to determine whether proposed projects align with the goals and objectives of the federal agencies that support our country’s cultural heritage programs.
Ideological Discrimination Against Viewpoints (§ 200.300, §200.205(b))
The prohibition of DEI and gender ideology from grant applications (§ 200.300) would disproportionately burden and discourage archives, libraries, museums and other cultural institutions from seeking federal funding. As stewards of history, these organizations are uniquely positioned to interpret and understand our nation’s past, including by highlighting multiple perspectives and the cultural diversity of the American experience. This provision would undermine cultural heritage institutions who focus on civil rights and other institutions dedicated to preserving and interpreting culturally specific histories.
Furthermore, in recent cases such as American Council of Learned Societies et al. v. National Endowment for the Humanities, the courts determined that this administration’s termination of federal grants based on their purported promotion of DEI was unlawful and amounted to viewpoint discrimination. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) used the same Executive Orders (such as Executive Order 14151 and 14168) cited in OMB’s proposed rule to define DEI and gender ideology. In practice, this definition of DEI led to DOGE’s illegal cancellation of grants that focused on research into the history of minority groups. Should the proposed rule go forward with these definitions of DEI and gender ideology, it could prevent federal funding from going to cultural heritage institutions whose collections contain significant documentation of historically marginalized communities. We recommend that all mentions of DEI and gender ideology be removed from the proposed rule.
Finally, the wording of §200.205(b) as it refers to Executive Order 14332 on “anti American” values should be removed due to its vagueness and potential problematic interpretations and implementations. The public trusts archives, libraries and museums because they rely on independent scholarship and research, uphold high professional standards, and embrace open inquiry. These institutions often collect and display records for educational and research purposes that promote politically unpopular ideas, or histories that some may find offensive. Cultural heritage institutions applying for federal funds should not be disqualified or have to censor their collections out of fear that they are disfavored by current or future administrations.
Active Grants Can Be Terminated at Will (§ 200.211, § 200.340, § 200.341, § 200.342, §200.343)
As has been pointed out by our colleagues in other fields, the proposed rule gives federal agencies the ability to terminate awards at any time. This change in OMB policy also eliminates the opportunity to appeal or schedule a hearing on the termination. This would leave grantees with no meaningful opportunity to understand, challenge, or respond to an unjustified cancellation of funding. Based on the federal government’s recent history of unlawful termination of previously awarded federal grants, grantees have reason to be concerned about entering into a grant agreement that could be canceled out of mistake or malice, while being left with no recourse to challenge potentially unfair, unjust, or mistaken terminations.
Cultural heritage institutions make long-term budget and programming decisions based on grant proposals. The above provisions introduce new and unreasonable risks for institutions seeking federal funding.
If implemented, this proposed rule could exclude a significant percentage of cultural heritage institutions from receiving federal funds. We anticipate that many organizations would not be eligible to receive federal grants without significantly altering their activities and practices in order to align them with the political preferences of current or future administrations. This would result in increased financial pressure for non-profits in already challenging times. Therefore, we ask OMB to reconsider the proposed rule and delay any further implementation.
Sincerely,
The Archivists Round Table of Metropolitan New York, Inc., Advocacy Committee
A.R.T. Public Comment on OMB Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance-2.pdf
Dear A.R.T. Members,
You may have seen recent headlines claiming that Mayor Mamdani has restored library funding in his recent updated proposal for the city's FY27 budget. Unfortunately, while the new proposal has increased library funding from the Mayor's original FY27 financial plan, the new budget is still short (by $97 million) of meeting his campaign promise of allocating .5% of the city budget to its public libraries. You can read a more detailed breakdown of the numbers from our colleagues at the NYC Public Library Action Network (PLAN).
What you can do:
1. Send a letter (or two) to your NYC Council Member
NYC PLAN has set up a campaign that allows you to send an email to your Council Member in just a few seconds: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/city-council-we-demand-half-a-percent-of-the-overall-city-budget-for-libraries.
You can also send a letter through Urban Librarians Unite’s campaign to support NYC Libraries with additional funding: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/help-support-nyc-libraries-with-additional-funding/
2. Give your Council Member a quick call
NYC PLAN has a webpage that makes it easy to look up your Council Member, along with a script you can reference during your call: https://nycplan.org/actions/call-your-city-councilmember/
3. Testify before City Council on June 10th
When the City Council's Committee on Finance meets on June 10th, the public has the opportunity to testify either:
NYC PLAN has a document with instructions on how to sign up, along with recommendations on how to testify effectively: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QWwqgrv0SfajB-BKVsym5b6nedhSuA_TqznbN1hLcWg/edit?tab=t.0
- A.R.T. Advocacy Committee
Please feel free to reach out to the Advocacy Committee with questions, comments, and suggestions at advocacy@nycarchivists.org.
We have good news and bad news regarding the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and the state of federal funding for libraries, archives, and museums. The good news: On Monday, April 6, the Trump administration withdrew its appeal of a federal judge’s earlier ruling in Rhode Island v. Trump. The withdrawal means that the 21 Attorneys General who filed the lawsuit to protect IMLS have prevailed. The federal government cannot dismantle IMLS or take further steps to eliminate the agency. The bad news: Despise this legal victory, the administration is once again seeking to eliminate the agency by submitting an FY2027 budget proposal to Congress with no funding for IMLS or the National Endowment for the Humanities.
1. Call or email your Senators to show support for funding IMLS and NEH
Please participate in the American Library Association's (ALA) campaign to Show Up For Our Libraries. ALA has set up forms that make it easy to call and email your representatives. Senators only have until April 17 to add their signatures to letters asking Senate budget leaders to support funding priorities (like library services), so we all need to act this week.
2. Sign your organization onto AAM's field-wide letter supporting federal funding for museums
We encourage all history organizations (not individuals) to sign on to a field-wide letter in support of federal funding for these agencies. The letter is being organized by our colleagues at the American Alliance of Museums (AAM). The deadline to sign on is April 30.
Please note that this letter is NOT for individuals to sign. If you do not have the approval or authority to sign on your organization, please forward this letter to an appropriate representative at your organization.
This administration's ongoing assault on the cultural heritage field can only succeed if we become demoralized or complacent. We must be relentless in advocating for the vital role of libraries, archives, and museums in our communities.
A.R.T. stands in solidarity with the people of Minneapolis, Minnesota and joins the nationwide calls demanding an end to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) occupations in America's cities. We also demand accountability for ICE and CBP’s agents, and the federal officials who have emboldened their violence and lied on their behalf. Below is our full statement on federal immigration violence and misinformation.
Read our full statement here: A.R.T. Statement on Federal Immigration Violence and Misinformation
In the coming weeks, the Senate may begin consideration of an appropriations bill that contains funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) for fiscal year 2026. The draft Senate bill proposes a small decrease for IMLS despite President Trump's budget proposal to eliminate the agency. Thanks to its past advocacy efforts, the cultural heritage community has been able to keep IMLS open despite previous attempts to shutter the agency. We encourage you to contact your members of Congress and urge them to keep IMLS Office of Museum Services funding levels in the bill and to include additional safeguards to prevent the White House from cutting appropriated funds. Our colleagues at the American Alliance of Museums have a form that is easy to fill out to reach your representatives.
Contact Congress
Update on IMLS Lawsuit
In April, attorneys general from 21 states filed a lawsuit, Rhode Island v. Trump, to defend IMLS and prevent the Trump administration from cancelling grants awarded by the agency. In May, the judge in the case issued a preliminary injunction requiring the White House to undo the steps it had taken to dismantle IMLS and prohibited further action against the agency. In September, a coalition of museum, library, and cultural organizations filed an amicus brief as the case proceeded to the federal appellate level. We encourage you to read it. Oral arguments have been scheduled for Thursday, December 4, in Boston.
Please feel free to reach out to the A.R.T. Advocacy Committee with questions, comments, and suggestions at advocacy@nycarchivists.org.
Note: The above post is adapted from a message from our colleagues at the American Association for State and Local History (AASLH).
- Kirk Mudle, Advocacy Committee Director
The moment you've been waiting for has arrived! Dive into the A.R.T. Advocacy Committee's 2025 survey findings.
We're tackling the big questions:
How do archivists really feel about their work?
What are post-COVID workplace conditions like?
What changes do archivists want to see in the field?
How can A.R.T. better serve its members?
Is losing decades of music history and pop culture journalism a fair price for a corporation's bottom line? This question compels archivists to grapple with the tension between preserving cultural heritage and the financial realities of the media landscape.
The disappearance of MTV News' archives potentially raises some critical issues:
The fragility of digital history: If a major corporation can simply erase its own past, what does this mean for the long-term accessibility of online information? Are internet archive services enough to safeguard cultural heritage in the digital age?
The value of music journalism: The MTV News archives represent a rich tapestry of music journalism, documenting careers, trends, and cultural movements. Does the financial value of this content outweigh its historical and cultural significance?
The role of archivists: This incident underscores the importance of archivists in advocating for the preservation of digital cultural heritage. How can archivists work with media companies to ensure valuable content isn't lost forever?
Or, is there a lot of smoke, but no actual fire to this development?
Jenny S. (A.R.T. member since 2004/5) asks:
Is the archive truly lost, or is the content just inaccessible? The article makes no distinction, but it's an important one. The equation of content not freely accessible on the web with vanished or "scrubbed" is one that we, as archivists, should be continuously addressing. It's hard to imagine that Paramount would dump this content goldmine. Perhaps a plan to monetize it better is in the works? There are too many unknowns to begin mourning MTV News.
One aspect of advocacy is applying our expertise to topical issues and making our work legible to users and decision-makers. How do you explain nuances such as accessibility and preservation?
The board of the Archivists Round Table of Metropolitan New York (ART) condemns in the strongest terms the attack on the United States Capitol by those seeking to block the certification of electors in the recent presidential election.
We abhor the violence that resulted in five deaths at the Capitol and exposed members of Congress to COVID-19. We are thankful that our elected officials were not injured and commend the service of guards and staff who protected them at great risk to themselves.
We denounce the actions of those who continue to baselessly object to the election results, claiming without evidence that the results were fraudulent for their own political gain, which threatens to further inflame violent actions by their followers.
As archivists and historians, we are well aware that the events that unfolded on January 6th are not without precedent; archives of the United States bear witness to many instances of violence perpetrated by those with white supremacist views seeking to wield political power. Indeed, the contested election of 1876, which some lawmakers disingenuously cited as grounds for objecting to the certification of electors of key states, is notorious for having brought about the end of Reconstruction, paving the way for Jim Crow laws and violence against Black citizens of the American South. The stakes of bowing to violent actors and those who would subvert the public will through disenfranchisement cannot be overstated.
One of the core values that archivists bring to democratic society is the preservation of documentary evidence in order to hold our leaders and institutions accountable for their actions. We safeguard the authenticity of historical documents from vandalism and manipulation, and strive to support transparency in our institutions by making archives broadly accessible to the public. Yet, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has suffered years of underfunding and closures of regional branches, making records inaccessible to numerous constituencies throughout the country. NARA staff have also been targets of political retribution for attempting to gather presidential records that the previous administration sought to destroy. Actions taken to limit access to historical documents are occurring against a backdrop of increasingly widespread misinformation and distortions of our nation’s past and present, further hindering the public’s ability to discern fact from fiction.
In the weeks and months ahead, as we reckon as a nation with the events of January 6th and their consequences, it is critical that the new administration take steps to support the National Archives and Records Administration and the work of local archivists throughout the country. Archives are vital to our collective understanding of past and present violence, and to restoring confidence in our democratic institutions.
As an organization representing a diversity of cultural and governmental institutions, collections, and archivists in the New York metropolitan area, ART affirms our commitment to upholding democratic values towards the promise of a more just and free society.
On December 30, 2019 ART submitted comments in opposition of the proposed changes to the fees for accessing the historic public records of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). The changes outlined in the agency’s proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Docket No. USCIS-2019-0010 sought to significantly increase the fee for the agency to search the Master Index of the Genealogy Program from $65 to $240 (increase of 269%) and increase the fee to get reproductions of records from $65 to $385 (increase of 492%). ART opposes these exorbitant fees increases, just two among many fees increases proposed by the USCIS, and also urges the USCIS to transfer its historic records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), where the records would be managed more efficiently, accessed more freely, and reproduced more economically. ART_statement_USCIS_fees_increase_20191230.docx
In November 2019 ART signed on to a letter urging Thomson Reuters (owners of Westlaw) and RELX (owners of Lexis-Nexis) to cancel their contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In this effort, part of a larger campaign to get tech and data companies to stop doing business with ICE, ART joined a group of community organizations, law professors, law students, librarians, and practicing attorneys.
DONATE
