Beyond the Lawn Care: Why Reforming Presidential Library Funding Matters More Than Ever

Opening Analysis

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is confronting a growing financial challenge: how to balance the preservation of presidential libraries—vital repositories for American history—with escalating operational costs currently subsidized by taxpayers. With the number of presidential libraries poised to increase, including those for Trump and Biden, NARA’s efforts to shift routine maintenance expenses to presidential foundations represent a critical pivot in federal stewardship. This story matters because it underscores the evolving dynamics of public-private partnerships in preserving national heritage amid fiscal constraints and raises important questions about taxpayer responsibility in maintaining these symbolic, yet costly, institutions.

The Bigger Picture

Presidential libraries emerged during the 20th century as centralized archives dedicated to a president’s documents, artifacts, and historical legacy, starting formally with Franklin D. Roosevelt. Managed jointly by the federal government through NARA and private foundations, these libraries have expanded significantly both in number—currently 14, soon to be 16—and in scope, often doubling as museums and public event spaces. Historically, these institutions were envisioned primarily as archives and research centers.

Over time, however, their operational realities have shifted. Construction costs have ballooned—now approaching the scale of presidential campaigns themselves—and day-to-day expenses like landscaping, cleaning, and repairs have become substantial budget items shouldered largely by federal appropriations. This shift reflects broader trends in public agency funding where maintenance of historic but sprawling facilities drains resources that could otherwise support core missions such as archival preservation and document digitization.

What This Really Means

The implications are multifold. First, the increasing deferred maintenance backlog—estimated at $123 million—signals a growing risk that physical deterioration will undermine these institutions’ long-term viability. If routine upkeep tasks continue to depend primarily on taxpayer dollars, the core archival mission could be compromised, particularly in periods of government shutdown or budget cuts.

Second, shifting operational costs to presidential foundations aligns maintenance responsibility more closely with the private entities that raised funds for construction and programmatic activities, thereby relieving taxpayer burden and potentially increasing incentives for efficient facility management.

However, this restructuring raises critical governance questions. How equipped are presidential foundations to handle operational logistics, including contracting and compliance? Will shifting costs create disparities between libraries tied to wealthy foundations and those less funded, potentially affecting access and preservation quality?

Finally, this reform effort reflects broader tensions in federal resource allocation priorities—balancing fiscal responsibility, public accountability, and stewardship of culturally significant assets.

Expert Perspectives

Luke Nichter, History Professor at Chapman University: "It now takes about as much money to build a presidential library as it does to run for president — about a billion dollars. The American taxpayer should not bear that. The administration deserves credit for starting an important conversation about the future of these cherished institutions. In the future, the National Archives will have to focus more closely on what it does well — the preservation of federal and presidential records — and leave other functions to the presidential foundations."

Jim Byron, Senior Advisor to the Archivist: "Despite decades of well-intentioned oversight and stewardship of America’s presidential libraries by the National Archives, reality now dictates that operational changes can and should be made to ensure the long-term health of these American treasures. The alternative is to do nothing and allow NARA’s appropriations to go to lawn care and toilet cleaning at the expense of FOIA processing, closing libraries during government shutdowns, and growing maintenance backlogs."

These expert views highlight the necessity of reform while acknowledging the delicate balance between governmental responsibility and private stewardship.

Data & Evidence

• NARA's annual spending on presidential libraries totals approximately $91 million from federal appropriations.
• The aggregated deferred maintenance backlog on these facilities is roughly $123 million.
• The reform negotiations aim to save $27 million by transferring operational costs such as lawn care, painting, and quick repair maintenance to presidential foundations.
• Current presidential libraries number 14, set to increase to 16 with the addition of Trump and Biden libraries.
• Cost for building current presidential libraries is estimated to be close to $1 billion—comparable to presidential campaign expenses.

Looking Ahead

Several key trends and questions merit attention as NARA navigates these reforms:

• Expansion of the System: With new presidential libraries forthcoming, the operational and maintenance burden will only grow, potentially exacerbating financial pressures without structural changes.
• Public-Private Dynamics: The evolving cost-sharing model will require careful oversight to ensure private foundations have the capacity and willingness to assume operational responsibilities without compromising transparency, public access, or quality.
• Preservation vs. Presentation: As presidential libraries increasingly serve as public museums and event venues, the balance between archival integrity and visitor experience will influence funding priorities and operational management.
• Digital Transition: Reallocating funds toward digitization and records sharing will support broader public access and historical research, marking a positive shift in mission focus.
• Equity Considerations: Disparities in fundraising across presidential foundations may create uneven resource distribution, potentially affecting some libraries’ upkeep and programming.

The Bottom Line

NARA’s proposals to shift operational costs to presidential foundations reflect an overdue modernization of federal stewardship over presidential libraries, born from escalating costs and expanding institutional complexity. While this approach promises taxpayer savings and renewed focus on archival preservation, its success depends on forging sustainable public-private partnerships, ensuring equitable standards across libraries, and maintaining these institutions’ cultural and historical integrity. This reform debate speaks broadly to the challenges of funding iconic public institutions in an era of constrained government budgets and rising public expectations for transparency and efficiency.