Museums face instability in a changing political climate

In 2025 museums are facing threats to stability from multiple federal policies and actions—executive orders taking aim at DEI initiatives, slashes to federal grantmaking agencies, and sweeping directives to constrain scholarship and programming. Museum leaders and staff are struggling to navigate these changes and protect their core missions and values.

The challenges primarily come in three forms: threats to financial stability, threats to intellectual freedom for government-affiliated museums, and threats of a chilling effect on museums at large.

Sudden loss of museum funding and the fight to sustain programs

Government support makes up only 24% of museums’ income, on average, with a mere 3% from the federal government. The majority of museum income comes from private sources—32% from earned income from sources like admissions, membership fees, and facility rentals; 30% from contributed or donated income from individuals or foundations; and 13% from investment income. Still, museum budgets are typically tight and have only grown more so as widespread attendance shortfalls and inflation have trailed the pandemic years.

When the administration recently moved to abruptly cancel grants and lay off staff at agencies like the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities (NEA and NEH), contradicting congressional allocations and near-unanimous public support for their funding, hundreds of institutions found themselves with sudden financial gaps to fill. Those affected have had to cut invaluable programs (such as early learning interventions for children with disabilities), reduce opening hours, and let go of staff—though some have successfully appealed for funding in response, and some private foundations have stepped up to fill gaps.

While museum autonomy comes under pressure, public support endures

Museums with a direct government affiliation have also faced attempts to constrain the content of their scholarship and programming. This has included attempts to eradicate DEI initiatives and “gender ideology” from all federal programs, as well as museum-targeted directives aimed at purging “divisive” content about identity and diversity and heralding the country’s “exceptionalism” instead.

Though the administration lacks the legal authority to force such changes, it has criticized specific exhibitions and called on citizens to report “inappropriate” content. However, a survey we conducted this year found that a majority of adults in the United States still support inclusive programming, across political affiliations. These results show the political environment doesn’t always accurately capture public opinion, and there may be more room for middle ground than our polarized discourse suggests.

A chilling effect on museum programming and speech

Though this executive challenge to content applies directly to a minority of museums, its impact is already spilling over to the rest of the field. As with DEI initiatives, the federal government’s example has led once-reliable private sponsors like corporations to decline supporting programs.

Meanwhile, the administration has threatened to revoke the nonprofit status of organizations it disagrees with, including private foundations that support museums’ contributed income. Those museums that can find funding for the types of exhibitions and programs under scrutiny might reasonably fear public backlash.

These factors can create a chilling effect on museum programming that widens the scope of the American story, emphasizing the achievements and struggles of people historically left out of the dominant narrative. The increasing difficulty of finding support for such content as well as the fear of backlash could pressure museums to limit themselves to only uncontroversial topics or perspectives.

Finding strength in numbers

The possibility of a collective chilling effect on museums, and sweeping threats, highlight how organizations must depend on and support one another. While every museum will be affected differently and may respond in its own way, no individual organization can realistically reverse the tide on its own.

We’ve seen encouraging signs of what can happen when nonprofits team up. At the American Alliance of Museums, we’ve helped museums and their staffs reach out to their elected representatives, with more than 80,000 letters sent and counting.

Despite the administration’s request to eliminate the agencies, both the House and Senate voted to fund IMLS for 2026 with only minor cuts and are negotiating on a final amount for the NEA and NEH. Meanwhile, a coalition of leading library, museum, and cultural organizations, along with the nation’s largest labor union of cultural workers, partnered to file an amicus brief in a lawsuit against the dismantling of IMLS, securing an injunction that will keep the agency open as the case moves through the courts.

Faced with existential threats to our field, this year has been a happy reminder of one thing: What works is working together.

Photo credit: diegograndi/Getty Images