In a dramatic turn of events highlighting the intersection of politics, technology, and intellectual property law, two men claiming to be newly appointed officials under the Trump administration were reportedly denied entry into the U.S. Copyright Office this past week. The episode, filled with unanswered questions and raising serious legal and ethical concerns, unfolded just days after a controversial report on artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright was released and two major firings within the Library of Congress system were announced.
This incident has added to the mounting unease among legal experts, lawmakers, and digital rights advocates who view it as yet another indication of growing political interference in traditionally independent federal institutions—especially those regulating rapidly evolving fields like AI.
The Unannounced Visit: A Mysterious Attempt to Assume Power
On Monday morning, the staff of the U.S. Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. was met with a startling surprise: two men—Brian Nieves and Paul Perkins—arrived at the agency’s front doors claiming they had been appointed by the White House to senior leadership roles. According to eyewitnesses and initial reports, the two presented what appeared to be official documentation backing their purported appointments.
Nieves introduced himself as the new deputy librarian of Congress, while Perkins claimed he had been designated the acting director and register of copyrights—the top official in the U.S. Copyright Office. Despite their confident presentation and documentation, the pair were not permitted to enter the premises.
Capitol Police were reportedly alerted to the situation. However, a Capitol Police spokesperson later clarified that no physical removal or formal intervention was necessary. The situation was contained diplomatically, yet the implications of such an unsanctioned visit left staff rattled and uncertain about what was unfolding behind the scenes.
Are They Who They Say They Are?
In a bizarre twist, the names provided by the men—Brian Nieves and Paul Perkins—match the identities of current Department of Justice (DOJ) employees. Public LinkedIn profiles indicate that Nieves serves as a deputy chief of staff in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, while Perkins is listed as an associate deputy attorney general.
No formal statement has been issued by either the Department of Justice or the White House confirming the legitimacy of these supposed appointments. This murky backdrop has fueled speculation: were these two DOJ officials genuinely reassigned to high-ranking copyright posts, or was this an attempted overreach under unclear authority?
As of now, no official clarification has been provided. Both the DOJ and the Office of the Librarian of Congress have remained tight-lipped, contributing to a growing cloud of uncertainty and concern over the potential misuse of administrative power.
A Leadership Purge?
The attempted takeover comes on the heels of an unmistakable shake-up at the highest levels of the Library of Congress. Just two days prior to the unannounced visit, Shira Perlmutter, who had led the U.S. Copyright Office since 2020, was abruptly removed from her post. Her dismissal followed the release of a pre-publication draft of a 108-page report on AI and copyright—a deeply sensitive and hotly debated issue with enormous ramifications for the tech sector.
Even more surprisingly, Carla Hayden, the respected Librarian of Congress and the first woman and first Black individual to hold the role, was also dismissed shortly before Perlmutter. Hayden had been a widely admired figure within the library and academic communities, known for championing accessibility and modernization.
The alleged replacements came with their own controversies. A document purportedly carried by the two would-be appointees claimed that Todd Blanche, a former defense attorney for Donald Trump and currently serving as deputy attorney general, would take over as the acting Librarian of Congress. This claim was later confirmed by the Department of Justice, adding a further layer of legitimacy to a situation many initially regarded as surreal.
Target: The AI Copyright Report
While no official explanation was provided for Perlmutter’s firing, many observers believe it was directly connected to the Copyright Office’s draft report on the legal use of copyrighted works in training AI systems. The report, which was not finalized and was described as a “pre-publication version,” explored whether the use of copyrighted material by AI developers could be justified under the legal doctrine of fair use.
The timing of her dismissal—occurring just hours after the report’s release—was seen by critics as more than coincidental. Representative Joe Morelle, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee overseeing the Library of Congress, called Perlmutter’s ousting “a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis.” He further warned that the move could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations looking to manipulate government agencies for political or corporate gain.
What the Report Said: A Balancing Act
The draft report in question took a cautious and nuanced approach. While acknowledging that fair use might permit certain uses of copyrighted materials for training AI models, it drew a clear line at commercial exploitation.
The report stated that “making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them… goes beyond established fair use boundaries.” This statement struck a nerve with many in the tech industry, especially those involved in generative AI development.
Companies like OpenAI, Google, Meta, and other tech giants have been at the forefront of training large language models on publicly available data—much of which includes copyrighted materials such as books, articles, music, and artwork. Critics argue that such practices effectively steal from content creators without permission or compensation.
In contrast, proponents maintain that such training is transformative and should fall under fair use, especially if the end product does not directly replicate the original material.
Industry and Legal Reactions
The report’s release ignited strong reactions across the legal and tech sectors. The New York Times, currently involved in a high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI, quickly highlighted that the Copyright Office’s preliminary findings validated many of its legal arguments.
NYT spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander echoed the report’s concerns, stating that “using protected works to generate competing content is not fair use.” The Times’ case argues that OpenAI illegally scraped and repurposed their articles to train ChatGPT, which now produces news-like content without attribution or licensing.
Other copyright holders—including authors, visual artists, and musicians—have filed similar lawsuits, suggesting that the stakes in this legal debate are both high and urgent. Billions of dollars in content licensing and creator compensation could hang in the balance.
A Dangerous Precedent?
At its core, the controversy now extends far beyond one report or two uninvited visitors. Critics argue that what’s at stake is the foundational independence of U.S. institutions tasked with safeguarding public knowledge, creativity, and democratic norms.
The U.S. Copyright Office and the Library of Congress are meant to function as apolitical stewards of intellectual and cultural heritage. Their role is especially vital in emerging legal territories such as AI, where outdated laws are being tested against cutting-edge innovation.
What happens when such institutions become susceptible to political interference? According to critics like Rep. Morelle, it opens the door to policymaking that favors corporate interests over public ones and erodes the rule of law.
Diversity and Equity Also Targeted?
Adding another layer to the situation, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a brief statement regarding Carla Hayden’s dismissal. Leavitt claimed that Hayden was removed due to “concerning actions she took in her pursuit of diversity, equity, and inclusion” at the Library of Congress.
No further explanation or supporting documentation was provided. For many, this echoed previous right-wing criticism of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs in federal agencies, universities, and corporations—often framed as ideological overreach or mismanagement.
Hayden had made diversity a central mission of her tenure, advocating for equitable access to digital and physical resources, and improving representation within the library’s staff and archival collections. Critics of her removal view it as a rollback of progress made in cultural inclusion and modernization.
A Flashpoint for 2024 and Beyond
With the 2024 presidential election cycle heating up, the drama unfolding at the U.S. Copyright Office may become an unexpected flashpoint in larger debates about AI regulation, government oversight, and democratic norms. Should the executive branch have the power to abruptly remove officials from independent agencies without clear justification? Who gets to shape the future of AI and copyright law in America?
For now, the situation remains unsettled. The Department of Justice has yet to release an official comment on the attempted appointments of Nieves and Perkins. Neither has the White House elaborated on its long-term plans for the Library of Congress or the Copyright Office.
But one thing is clear: the fight over copyright and artificial intelligence is no longer just a legal or technological issue—it’s a political battleground with high stakes for creators, tech giants, lawmakers, and voters alike.
Final Thoughts
The seemingly minor act of two men showing up unannounced at a federal building has triggered a cascade of questions that touch on some of the most critical issues of our time—government transparency, technological ethics, institutional independence, and the future of human creativity in the AI era.
Until further clarity is provided, the controversy surrounding the U.S. Copyright Office serves as both a warning and a wake-up call. The institutions built to protect knowledge and creativity must be shielded from political manipulation, especially at a time when the lines between authorship, ownership, and innovation are being redrawn.