Washington in Turmoil: Leadership Crisis Rocks U.S. Copyright Office Over AI Policy Dispute
A dramatic power struggle is unfolding at the U.S. Copyright Office, where confusion, legal ambiguity, and political tensions have collided in a storm ignited by growing debates over artificial intelligence and intellectual property. In a scene more akin to political theater than administrative procedure, two men claiming to be newly appointed officials under the Trump administration attempted to enter the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. earlier this week—but were ultimately turned away.
The attempted takeover came on the heels of the sudden and controversial ousting of two key figures: Shira Perlmutter, the now-former Register of Copyrights, and Carla Hayden, the respected Librarian of Congress. Their dismissals occurred just after Perlmutter’s office released a landmark report warning against the misuse of copyrighted materials in training generative AI systems—a hot-button issue in the intersection of technology, law, and creative rights.
The Unexpected Visit: Conflicting Accounts and Escalating Confusion
The two men, identified as Brian Nieves and Paul Perkins, arrived at the U.S. Copyright Office claiming they had been officially appointed as Deputy Librarian of Congress and Acting Director of the Copyright Office, respectively. According to multiple eyewitness accounts, they presented documentation asserting their new roles but were ultimately denied entry into the building.
Conflicting reports followed. While Capitol Police stated they were not involved in removing or denying access to the men, sources inside the Library of Congress confirmed that entry was indeed blocked. The encounter left staff and legal observers in a state of bewilderment, questioning not only the legitimacy of the appointments but also whether the actions had any constitutional or legal grounding.
DOJ Confirms Appointments—But Details Remain Murky
Amid mounting media scrutiny, the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed that both Nieves and Perkins had been formally appointed to new leadership positions. However, the DOJ offered no comment on whether they attempted to physically assume control of the Copyright Office. The White House has also remained largely silent on the matter, fueling speculation about the motives behind the shakeup.
What remains deeply uncertain is whether the president has the legal authority to intervene so directly in the leadership of the Library of Congress—an institution that is traditionally independent from executive oversight and where appointments are typically the domain of the Librarian of Congress alone.
AI Copyright Report Sparks Political Firestorm
Central to the controversy is a 108-page draft report authored by Perlmutter’s office just before her removal. The report presents a firm position on the use of copyrighted works for training AI systems—an issue that has reached the courts in multiple high-profile lawsuits, including a pending case filed by The New York Times against OpenAI.
The report acknowledges that fair use doctrine may permit limited AI training in certain contexts, but it draws a hard boundary against mass commercial exploitation. “Using vast amounts of copyrighted content to create AI-generated material that competes directly with the originals—especially when access to that content may be unauthorized—goes well beyond what fair use allows,” the report asserts.
That statement was enough to draw both praise and outrage. Copyright advocates and content creators applauded the firm stance, while tech companies and AI developers, many of whom rely heavily on existing content for training datasets, pushed back. The tech industry’s growing reliance on AI tools trained with such data suggests the report threatened the very foundation of some commercial AI models.
Legal Experts Warn of Overreach, Question Legality of Firings
Many legal scholars and public policy advocates are now questioning the constitutionality of the leadership changes. The Register of Copyrights is a position traditionally appointed by the Librarian of Congress—not the President. Shira Perlmutter, who held the post since 2020, was widely respected for her depth of expertise and nonpartisan approach to intellectual property law.
Meredith Rose, senior policy counsel at Public Knowledge, strongly criticized the move: “The president has no more power to fire the Register than I do.” The sentiment has been echoed across the legal and political spectrum.
Representative Joe Morelle (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the committee overseeing the Library of Congress, condemned the actions as “a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis.” He argued that Perlmutter’s dismissal likely stemmed from her refusal to approve data-mining exceptions sought by powerful tech interests.
Carla Hayden’s Removal Draws Further Scrutiny
The shakeup widened with the removal of Carla Hayden, the first Black woman to serve as Librarian of Congress, and a figure who had garnered bipartisan praise throughout her tenure. The White House has attempted to justify her dismissal by citing concerns over her promotion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs—an explanation that critics argue is a thinly veiled political pretext.
Before Hayden’s abrupt departure, her deputy Robert Newlan had been designated as Acting Librarian. In an internal message sent Monday, Newlan stated that Congress had issued no official directive regarding leadership changes and reaffirmed his role as acting head.
But in a further twist, documents carried by Nieves and Perkins indicated that Todd Blanche—Trump’s former personal attorney turned DOJ Deputy Attorney General—had been named Acting Librarian of Congress. The DOJ later confirmed Blanche’s appointment, adding yet another layer of complexity and legal uncertainty to the power transition.
Constitutional Crisis or Policy Realignment?
The unfolding drama has triggered urgent questions about the separation of powers and the limits of presidential authority over independent federal institutions. If the president can remove the Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress without Congressional input, what safeguards remain to prevent political interference in institutions designed to remain apolitical?
Critics see this as a direct assault on the independence of the Library of Congress and an attempt to rewrite the rules around AI and copyright to favor commercial interests. Supporters of the administration argue that the leadership changes are a necessary realignment in response to outdated policy perspectives on technology.
Broader Implications for AI Regulation and IP Law
The stakes are high. Generative AI is rapidly transforming industries from publishing and entertainment to software development and healthcare. At the heart of this transformation is the controversial use of copyrighted material to train AI models—an area where the law has yet to fully catch up with the pace of technological innovation.
If Perlmutter’s report is buried and replaced by more permissive guidance, the legal interpretation of “fair use” in the AI era could shift dramatically—potentially gutting protections for artists, authors, journalists, and educators.
Conversely, if her findings are upheld and turned into formal policy, they could dramatically curtail how AI companies operate, forcing a restructuring of current models and possibly triggering a wave of new licensing regimes.
What’s Next?
For now, the situation remains fluid. Congressional leaders are demanding answers, and internal staff at the Library of Congress are reportedly seeking legal guidance about which chain of command to follow. With lawsuits already pending and more likely on the way, the battle over leadership at the Copyright Office could end up reshaping not just an agency, but the legal framework governing artificial intelligence in the United States.
Whether the firings and appointments hold up to legal scrutiny remains to be seen—but what’s clear is that the clash between politics, technology, and law is just beginning.