The American Library Association has published its list of the 11 most challenged books in US libraries for 2025. The report documents a surge in challenges, with 4,235 unique titles targeted, the second-highest number on record. Most challenges came from pressure groups and officials, not individual parents.
The American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom released the top challenged books during National Library Week. Challenges refer to complaints about library materials, which can lead to bans, restrictions, or no action. The list for 2025 includes: 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 and Tricks by Ellen Hopkins; 7. A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas; and five titles tied for eighth, including A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess and Looking for Alaska by John Green. 40% of challenged titles featured LGBTQ+ people or people of color. 92% of challenges originated from pressure groups and government officials, up from 72% the previous year, with fewer than 3% from individual parents. ALA tracked 5,668 book bans, 66% of total challenges and the highest annual number recorded. 920 titles were restricted, such as through relocation or parental permission requirements. Sarah Lamdan, executive director of ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, stated: “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.” ALA President Sam Helmick said: “Libraries exist to make space for every story and every lived experience. As we celebrate National Library Week, we reaffirm that libraries are places for knowledge, for access, and for all.” The figures differ from those reported by PEN America due to variations in definitions, staffing, and scope, but both organizations highlight ongoing censorship trends.