PHILADELPHIA, Pa. — The Woodmere Art Museum has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that an executive order illegally stripped it of a substantial federal grant that was already approved by Congress. The museum, located on the grounds of a 19th-century mansion in Philadelphia, is challenging the administration’s authority to unilaterally revoke funds, a move that has impacted dozens of other cultural institutions nationwide.
The Grant and the Executive Order
The lawsuit, filed on August 26, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeks the reinstatement of a $750,000 grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The grant, part of the IMLS’s “Save America’s Treasures” program, was awarded to the Woodmere in 2024 to support the preservation of its collection and a new education facility. The museum had already begun using a portion of the funds and had committed a significant matching sum from private donors, a requirement of the IMLS program.
The grant was revoked after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 14, 2025, titled “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy.” The order, which a government watchdog has since deemed an illegal impoundment of funds, targeted a number of federal agencies and their grant programs that the president deemed “unnecessary.” The IMLS and its grant-making functions were included in this directive. The lawsuit argues that the administration’s action violates the Separation of Powers and the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the sole power to control federal spending.
William R. Valerio, the director and chief executive of the Woodmere, stated that the museum attempted to resolve the issue through non-litigious avenues before resorting to legal action.
“When the Save America’s Treasures grant awarded to Woodmere in 2024 was terminated in 2025, we made several requests for review by the IMLS and sought assistance from our elected officials,” Valerio said in a statement. “When we exhausted all non-litigious avenues for reinstatement, we filed our complaint. We remain committed to this action until the grant is fully restored, so that we can continue our critical work preserving, archiving, and conserving our museum collection.”
The legal challenge is not an isolated incident. The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees have also filed lawsuits against the administration over its attempts to eliminate the IMLS. Additionally, a federal judge recently ruled that the administration acted unlawfully by withholding grant funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), an agency with a similar mission to the IMLS. For more on the mission and operations of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, you can visit their official website.
Broader Implications for the Arts
The lawsuit highlights a broader trend of the current administration’s efforts to curtail federal support for the arts and culture. The president’s executive orders have targeted funding for programs he has deemed to have “improper ideology” or to be “divisive.” This has led to widespread concern within the arts community, which views federal funding as a crucial lifeline for institutions that provide public access to history, education, and cultural enrichment.
The Woodmere Art Museum, with its focus on American art and its extensive collection of historical artifacts, argues in its lawsuit that the loss of the grant has already forced it to delay and scale back projects. This includes the conservation and digitization of its collection, which are critical for the museum’s mission. The lawsuit also notes that the museum is reliant on the grant money to continue projects that were underway and had been planned with the understanding that the government would honor the full grant.
While some institutions that lost funding have since had it restored, the Woodmere’s decision to go to court is a strong signal of its determination. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent, determining the extent of presidential power over congressionally-approved funds and the future of federal support for cultural institutions across the country.