The last week has seen remarkable changes in the senior leadership at one of the world’s most venerable research libraries, the Library of Congress. Last Thursday, its as announced that the White House dismissed the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden. Shortly thereafter, on Saturday, it was announced that Shira Perlmutter had also been removed from her role as Register of Copyrights. The Librarian of Congress has long been a position of influence, but generally not one of contentiousness or significant controversy beyond some important policy questions around copyright. That world was overturned last week in this series of moves by the Trump administration. 

During the nearly two-and-a-quarter centuries since the first Librarian was appointed, only three of the fourteen Librarians of Congress have had previous training or served as librarians prior to accepting the job. Dr. Hayden came to the role with a tremendous background, reputation and expertise in library science, as well as in running significant library systems — the Chicago Public Library and the Enoch Pratt Library system in Baltimore. Beyond her experience, it is also worth noting that Dr. Hayden was the first woman and first African American to be appointed to this role. Her many awards and honors are but one sign of the respect and admiration she has inspired, which extends well beyond the world of librarians to include being named Woman of the Year in 2003 by Ms. magazine. She is beloved by her librarian colleagues, and her reputation of being “a librarian’s librarian” is evidenced by the hundreds of selfies and photos she’s taken over the years that library workers have posted to social media in the past week.

This administration has taken an adversarial approach to the leadership of nearly every government agency that had not been appointed by the current President, and even some that served during the previous term, but for whatever reason aren’t perceived as “loyal” enough. This is despite the fact that Federal employees must swear an oath to support the Constitution rather than any President or administration. A growing number of organizations from across the community are stepping up to condemn the firings, including the Authors Guild, the American Library Association, the Association for Information Science and Technology and others.  Some Congressional representatives have also objected to the firing, including Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, representatives Joe Morelle (D-NY), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), and others.

The justification provided by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the rationale for firing Dr. Hayden as due to “quite concerning things she had done in pursuit of DEI and putting inappropriate books in the library for children”. On its face, this is a ridiculous statement that reflects little understanding of the Library, its function, or even its basic operation. The inclusion of Hayden on a list of targeted officials, as reported by The Guardian earlier this year, only reinforces the fact that this had little to do with her performance, the success of the library under her leadership, or the impact of the work of the institution. Most specifically, children under 16 are not even permitted to use the Library’s collections.

As to the question about the DEI inclusiveness of the Library’s collection, this too seems a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Library functions.  The Library of Congress is a copyright repository and it has, by mandate of law, a requirement that any copyrighted work be deposited. Copies of all works under copyright protection that have been published or distributed in the United States must be deposited with the Copyright Office within three months of the date of first publication. In the Code of Federal Regulations Title 37 Chapter II Subchapter A Part 202 202.19 (c) that describes Exemptions from Deposit Requirements, there is no exemption for content seem as being lewd, too diverse or “woke”, or even “inappropriate books…for children”.  The Library of Congress is the repository for all content published under copyright in the United States. One may not value all the content published in this country, but it is the responsibility of the Library to keep a record of all of it, regardless of anyone’s view of its quality or “appropriate”-ness. To misunderstand this is to fundamentally not grasp a core element of the institution’s purpose.  

It is hardly surprising that this administration, which seeks to control what it calls the “deep state”, would eventually turn its attention to controlling the information repositories in the government. The National Archives was the first to face the wrath of the administration, when the Archivist of the United States, Colleen Shogan, was dismissed from her position in February. Likely this was related to the role that NARA played in noticing that materials were missing from the White House transfer of materials at the end of Trump’s first term, which led to one of the several criminal proceedings for retention of classified information at the Mar-a-Lago resort.  This appears to have been considered a slight deserving of quick retribution.

What seems to have caught the attention and ire of the White House at LoC was a pre-publication report issued last week by the Copyright Office on the topic of Artificial Intelligence. This draft is the third part of a Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence examining how AI replicates digital content, the copyrightability of the AI-generated outputs, examining how AI systems are trained. Without going into details about the content of the report, the latest document generally came down in favor of the rights of copyright holders in the training and reuse applications of AI systems. Anyone well versed in the copyright issues around AI systems will hardly be surprised by the analysis in the report.

However, one need not look beyond the business interests of advisors to the President to consider the threat that this report might have on the massive investments in AI systems to recognize the threat this could pose. Earlier this year, Jack Doresey, founder of Twitter, and Elon Musk notably exchanged tweets that encouraged the US to “delete all IP law.” In a public letter about the firing of Perlmutter, Representative Joe Morelle wrote that it is “no coincidence [Trump] acted less than a day after [Perlmutter] refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models.”

Fellow Scholarly Kitchen Chef Lisa Hinchliffe wrote on LinkedIn about the firing by noting: “Publishers, I know you don’t love the copyright office being in LoC but this does not end well for you. I advise solidarity with librarians right now.” Some have speculated that one aim of these moves is to remove the Copyright Office from LoC to become an independent, or quasi-independent agency within the department of Commerce, like the US Patent Office. There was support for this back in 2015, notably from Maria A. Pallante, the then Register of Copyrights,  who now serves CEO of the Association of American Publishers. It is interesting to consider a 2016 article from Heritage Foundation — a significant source of thought leadership for this administration, especially Project 2025 — about the removal of Pallente from her role as Register of Copryights. At the time, Hayden’s leadership and removal of Pallente was described by the Heritage Foundation as “part of an effort by Silicon Valley firms and the Obama administration to weaken American copyright law.” This week,Pallente issued a comment on the dismissals last wee, which was reasonable and measured, but it failed to criticize the actions, despite the critical role that the Copyright Office plays in support of the content provider communities. Given how the administration has treated independent agencies, I certainly would be wary of trusting such an important function to our industry as copyright to the whims and power games at play in this White House.

There are open questions about the status of decisions related to the removal from and appointments of people to fill these, and other, roles. In fact, when the new interim appointees arrived at the Library earlier this week, they were not allowed to enter the premises on Monday. Robert Newlen, Deputy Librarian of Congress and current interim Librarian of Congress, wrote in an internal email that the White House’s interim appointment of a different Interim Librarian had not been recognized. “Congress is engaged with the White House and we have not received direction from Congress about how to move forward.” Several in Congress have expressed concerns about the power grab, noting that the Library of Congress is a legislative body, not an Executive Branch institution.  This push back on the President’t action is a rare show of power by the co-equal Legislative Branch in a divided government. Apparently, as reported by Politico, according to sources on Capitol Hill, there is quiet but firm resistance from Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (both Republicans) over this takeover of a Congressional institution by the Executive branch. How this all will play out moving forward is an open question and likely one that won’t be resolved quickly, and may likely involve the Judicial Branch weighing in as well.

Another issue playing an interesting role here is the desire for and interest in intellectual freedom. A significant aspect of the work of the Library of Congress is the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the research arm of Congress. CRS staff “assist at every stage of the legislative process — from the early considerations that precede bill drafting, through committee hearings and floor debate, to the oversight of enacted laws and various agency activities.” They issue a variety of public reports on everything from (just recently) Medicaid, to military equipment, to minerals, to tariffs, which serve as the basis for legislative action. One concern expressed by Congressional leadership is in providing the DOGE group access to the data, research requests, and use of library resources.  If one can analyze usage and “connect the dots” about what Congress is researching before it is public, they could then influence the public conversation about those issues and drive public opinion toward a particular outcome. 

The library community collectively has been fierce advocates for intellectual freedom and user privacy, notably Dr. Hayden herself. In 2003, Dr. Hayden, then serving as President of the ALA, engaged in a public debate with then Attorney General John Ashcroft about the privacy of library records under the USA PATRIOT Act. Ashcroft decried Dr. Hayden’s critique of the Act for fueling ‘‘baseless hysteria’’ about the government’s interest in the public’s reading habits. Subsequent study of the use of the US PATRIOT Act powers by the FBI indicated there was significant reason to be concerned. This was further borne out by revelations by Edward Snowden in 2013.  It would be quite an irony if the independence of the Library of Congress were to continue because of the desire for intellectual freedom from those who have been supported by some of its most ardent opponents.