Navigating federal funding and the new strings attached

In our last newsletter, we talked about sustainable advocacy. This month, we’re starting to see early results of several advocacy efforts—with some caveats and complications. 

First, the good news: the majority of the federal agencies we rely on (including IMLS, NEH and NPS, and NEA and the Historic Preservation Fund) have seen funding released for FY26. We’re still waiting for NARA and NHPRC funding to progress.

While the approval of funding is a relief, many remain conflicted about putting time and effort into federal grant applications. The unlawful revocation of FY2025 funds is still fresh in our minds and there’s an understandable fear that it could happen again.

As for the not-so-good news: beyond the risk of revocation, the newly released funding comes with unprecedented strings attached.

WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE FIELD 

Before FY26 funding was approved, IMLS released its open call for the next grant cycle. The accompanying cover letter, outlining a new set of expectations, immediately caught our attention.While IMLS was the first to attach this letter to its funding calls, we anticipate similar mandates will soon appear in all federal funding opportunities. 

Specifically, applicants are now being strongly encouraged—or in some cases expected—to uphold a concerning list of recent EOs while carrying out their funded work.

We won’t list every order, but the underlying demand is alarming. Under the guise of “uplifting positive narratives” and “religious freedom,” these mandates attempt to enforce a specific political worldview, dictating which parts of history and culture can be shared—and how. This is, essentially, asking institutions to censor complex truths in exchange for funding.

For many in our field, these stipulations conflict with professional standards. This moment is particularly unusual due to the scope of requirements. In previous years, similar mandates applied mostly to federal agencies like the Smithsonian or the National Park Service. Now, local museums, libraries, and archives that accept federal funding are being asked to operate under those same conditions. 

Agreeing to these terms raises legitimate concerns about staff wellbeing and community trust. Leaving these funds on the table, however, carries a different set of consequences.

A CRISIS OF CONSCIENCE 

This puts cultural heritage organizations in a difficult position. It feels like a lose-lose situation: accept federal funding with strings attached, or reject the money and face financial setbacks.

We want to emphasize that we support whichever choice your organization makes. There’s a legitimate case for both choices, with each requiring a different sacrifice. Organizations will reach different conclusions based on their unique circumstances.

The choice to apply for funding

Everyone needs money to operate. For organizations that rely heavily on federal grants, losing those funds can have devastating financial implications. To keep important community programs running and staff employed, many will choose to accept funding and whatever bargain comes with it. There are creative ways to meet the grant agreements while still upholding your mission. This, however, brings a crisis of conscience.

The choice to forgo funding 

On the other hand, not all institutions are entirely reliant on federal funds. Some might pivot to alternative funding sources (though we know those are sparse) or find creative ways—such as local partnerships—to execute projects without federal backing.

Others may choose to pause or put certain projects on hold, rather than operate under the new expectations. Regardless of circumstances, rejecting funding carries the very real threat of project closures, canceled community programs, and staff layoffs. This, too, brings a crisis of conscience.

WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT

If your organization is currently in the thick of this decision: 

1. First, know that you’re not the only one. 
2. Then, make a pros and cons list.

A list might sound overly simple for a decision this big. But when you are stuck between a rock and a hard place, getting the facts out of your head and onto paper helps. You can also use this exercise to guide candid conversations with your team and, if you’re able, seek guidance from trusted peers and the communities you serve.

Break it down by answering these questions:

• The financials: If you forgo funding this year, how long can you keep the lights on? Could local centers of influence, private donors, or regional partnerships bridge the gap?
• The programs: Which projects face immediate closure without funding, and could they be paused instead? On the flip side, if you accept this year’s funding, what will it cost to comply?
• The human cost: Will forgoing grants cause staff layoffs? Contrarily, will accepting the funds impact your team's wellbeing, compromise professional ethics, or erode community trust?

Think of this as a harm mitigation strategy. Whichever path causes the least amount of harm to your people, community, and mission is most likely the soundest conclusion for your organization.

Once a decision is made: 

• If you go for the funding: Plan exactly how you’ll meet the new requirements (like adjusting signage or exhibits). Crucially, make time to connect with staff and community partners who may feel impacted or harmed by these changes.
• If you forgo the funding: Plan how to address the funding gap through alternative sources or project revamping. Be deliberate about how you handle any resulting program closures or staff reductions.

We can’t predict the future, but as cultural heritage practitioners, we know how to look to the past for answers. In this case, we only have to look back to last year to see how similar mandates were enforced on federal agencies like the Smithsonian and the National Park Service.

As always, keep your plans flexible. The landscape is shifting quickly, and your strategy will need to adapt along with it.

IN SUMMARY 

• FY26 funding is moving forward, but new EO requirements may influence how federally funded projects interpret and present their work.
• Many institutions are facing difficult decisions: accept federal support under these conditions, or absorb the financial impact of stepping away.
• There is no easy answer here—only what makes the most sense for your organization. 

CLOSING REFLECTIONS 

Admittedly, we don’t have a tidy solution or a “right” answer in terms of this year’s funding. There isn’t one. 

We can, however, offer solidarity. If these decisions are weighing on you, know that many others in our field are navigating the same tensions. 

Funding streams change. Resources shift over time. But the work you do—and the people it supports—endures.

This blog post content was originally included in our community newsletter: The Moment -- where we respond quickly and thoughtfully to impactful events and decisions that challenge or disrupt our profession.