Tennessee public libraries close for Trump-inspired book purge

One hundred and eighty-one public libraries in Tennessee are reviewing their children’s collections after Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett (R) ordered them to remove books with LGBTQ themes or characters. Hargett suggested that libraries that made such books available to children were violating federal and state law. Some libraries have closed for days so staff could focus on weeding out prohibited volumes.

Hargett sent two letters demanding the review to every library in the Tennessee Regional Library System, which covers most of the state except larger cities like Nashville and Memphis.

Hargett’s first letter, dated September 8, argued that libraries receive state and federal grants through the Tennessee State Library & Archives, which falls under his office, and that as a part of the contract for receiving those grants, the recipients agree to “comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.” Specifically, Hargett emphasized a recently-passed Tennessee law prohibiting DEI and President Trump’s executive order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which he signed on the first day of his second term.

In a second letter sent on October 27, Hargett demanded that all 181 libraries in the Tennessee Regional Library System review their children’s collections within 60 days and remove any books that violate state or federal law.

Hargett has not explained how the state law or Trump’s executive order apply to books in Tennessee public libraries. The state law Hargett cited, the “Dismantling DEI Departments Act,” passed earlier this year, prohibits any state or municipal government agency from having any offices or institutions related to DEI. For example, to comply with the bill, some colleges in the state have ended certain scholarships related to DEI or restructured offices that provide resources to minority and LGBTQ students. The law does not mention library books.

Trump’s executive order on “gender ideology” does not mention books either. Further, executive orders are not federal law and generally do not apply to state or local governments.

The executive order states that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.” Tennessee Regional Library System receives federal grants through the 2010 Library Services and Technology Act. Hargett’s argument is that by having books about LGBTQ people, libraries are “promoting gender ideology” and putting their federal grant funds in jeopardy.

But according to Hargett’s own webpage, Tennessee libraries are not using federal funds to buy books. Instead the funds are used to “provide all state residents with online access to essential library and information resources, including licensed databases, a statewide library catalog and interlibrary loan system, bibliographic services, and materials for the disadvantaged.”

Even if the executive order did apply to Tennessee local libraries, simply having books with LGBTQ stories and characters does not constitute “promoting gender ideology.” The classic fairytale Little Red Riding Hood involves a wolf eating a little girl, but does not promote violence. Children’s books are stories, not instruction manuals.

In letters to some of the libraries, Hargett singled out a children’s book called Fred Gets Dressed by Peter Brown. The book, which was written by a straight, cisgender man, does not feature any LGBTQ characters. Instead it is based on a childhood experience of the author in which he tried on his mother’s clothing and makeup. If a book about a boy trying on his mother’s clothes is the strongest example of “promoting gender ideology” that Hargett could identify, it raises questions about the necessity of the review.

As a result of Hargett’s demand for libraries to complete the review within 60 days, at least one Tennessee county has closed several of its library branches for up to a week. A library employee in the county told the Nashville Scene, “We are supposed to be a public space for everyone, and we feel like we can’t do our jobs ethically at this time when we get directives like this. … I can’t think of a time in history where public libraries have been asked to remove materials in this way. It feels completely unprecedented to have us close, lock the doors and remove a mass amount of books in secret — that’s scary.”

The constitutionality of purging books from public libraries

According to legal precedent, it is unconstitutional to remove books from a public library simply because the books include a character who identifies as LGBTQ.

In Island Tree School District v. Pico, a plurality of the Supreme Court found that, even in school libraries, the First Amendment prohibits government officials from removing books “simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.’” In public libraries, the First Amendment protections against content-based censorship are even stronger.

In March 2025, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against library officials in South Carolina who moved books positively portraying transgender people to the adults-only section. In the lawsuit, the ACLU wrote that a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment is that “the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.” In Tennessee, Hargett is attempting to censor the idea that LGBTQ people are acceptable members of society.

The policy Hargett is imposing on libraries also discriminates against people on the basis of sex and gender, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ACLU argued in the March 2025 lawsuit that censoring books with LGBTQ characters “subject[ed] LGBTQ children and their parents to unequal treatment by preventing them from accessing library materials positively reflecting themselves and their families.” Further, the ACLU argued that the policies injured LGBTQ people by treating their identities and experiences as “unacceptable and unworthy of inclusion in public space.”