As National Library Week begins, the American Library Association has released its top 11 most challenged books of 2025 and issued its 2026 State of the Libraries Report, which highlights the ongoing challenges libraries are facing.
Among the statistics about 2025 book challenges and cases of censorship:
The ALA documented 713 attempts to censor library materials and services, 487 of which targeted books.
The ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) tracked 4,235 individual titles challenged in 2025, the second highest ever documented by the ALA. (The highest ever documented was 4,240 in 2023.) Of the titles challenged in 2025, 1,671 (40%) represent the lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ people and people of color.
In 2025, OIF documented that 5,668 books were banned from libraries (66% of the total challenged). An additional 920 books were censored through access restrictions such as relocation or requiring parental permission. This is both the highest number of titles censored in one year and the highest rate of challenges resulting in censorship from 1990-2025.
92% of book challenges were initiated by pressure groups and government officials, up from 72% in 2024. Less than 3% of challenges originated from individual parents.
More than half of the titles in the top 11 most challenged books are new to the list and are marked below with asterisks.
The top 11 most targeted titles in 2025:
1. Sold by Patricia McCormick
2. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky
3. Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe
4. *Empire of Storms by Sarah J. Maas
5. (tie) *Last Night at the Telegraph Club by Malinda Lo
5. (tie) Tricks by Ellen Hopkins
7. *A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas
8. (tie) *A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
8. (tie) *Identical by Ellen Hopkins
8. (tie) Looking for Alaska by John Green
8. (tie) *Storm and Fury by Jennifer L. Armentrout
Sarah Lamdan, executive director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, commented: "In 2025, book bans were not sparked by concerned parents, and they were not the result of local grassroots efforts. They were part of a well-funded, politically-driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities."