A report examining book censorship in the United States alleges that the removal of books from public schools and libraries has evolved into a coordinated and institutionalized effort driven by political organizations, state legislation, and changes in federal policy. According to the analysis, the current wave of book restrictions extends beyond isolated local disputes and increasingly targets literature addressing race, gender identity, social inequality, and structural power.
The report states that book challenges have reached historically high levels and argues that the system of censorship has become more centralized. Rather than focusing on a small number of controversial works, it says campaigns now seek the removal of broad categories of books that explore systemic racism, historical inequality, LGBTQIA+ identities, and other marginalized experiences.
Citing data from the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, the report says 4,235 unique titles were challenged in public, school, and academic libraries. It further states that approximately 92 percent of documented book challenges originated from political pressure groups, government officials, or institutional decision-makers. According to the report, organizations including Moms for Liberty and No Left Turn in Education distribute lists of books to local chapters through centralized digital networks, resulting in similar challenges across multiple states.
The report describes these coordinated efforts as “astroturfing,” asserting that they create the appearance of widespread public demand for censorship while being organized through advocacy groups and conservative think tanks. It states that these organizations have influenced school board decisions by promoting restrictive policies that bypass traditional library review processes.
According to the report, federal policy shifted on January 24, 2025, when the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights dismissed 11 active civil rights investigations examining the legality of book removals in public school districts. It also states that the department eliminated the federal oversight coordinator position responsible for investigating viewpoint discrimination in school libraries.
The report says the Department of Education stated that the dismissed cases concerned parental and community oversight rather than civil rights issues and therefore fell outside the agency’s responsibilities. It further states that previous federal guidance warning that broad book removals could violate Title IX and Title VI civil rights protections was withdrawn, a move the report says altered the regulatory environment for school districts.
According to the analysis, several states, including Florida, Texas, and Iowa, have since enacted laws imposing administrative and criminal liability on public employees in connection with prohibited educational materials. Citing PEN America, the report states that approximately 97 percent of books removed under the threat of such legislation were not explicitly required to be removed by law but were withdrawn by school districts seeking to avoid potential penalties.
The report identifies a pattern in the types of books being challenged, stating that about 40 percent of unique titles documented by the American Library Association reflect the experiences of Black, Indigenous, People of Color, or LGBTQIA+ individuals. It cites works including Toni Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye,” Angie Thomas’s “The Hate U Give,” Maia Kobabe’s “Gender Queer,” and George M. Johnson’s “All Boys Aren’t Blue” as among the books frequently targeted for removal.
The analysis also states that restrictions have increasingly expanded to nonfiction, including history books, memoirs, and sociological works addressing labor movements, civil rights, economic inequality, and institutional power. According to the report, these removals reduce access to educational materials that examine historical and contemporary social structures.
The report concludes that the combination of reduced federal oversight, expanded state legislation, and organized political advocacy has contributed to increased self-censorship among educators and librarians. It also states that free speech organizations, librarian labor groups, and community networks have responded by pursuing legal action and grassroots efforts aimed at protecting public access to books and library resources.
