Trump’s Court Bid to Oust Copyright Chief Over AI Report Ignites Storm

In a high-stakes escalation of executive overreach, the Trump administration on October 27, filed an “emergency” application with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to reinstate President Donald Trump’s controversial May firing of Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

Perlmutter, a respected intellectual property expert with decades of experience at the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Recording Industry Association of America, was abruptly dismissed via White House email just one day after her office circulated a preliminary version of Part 3 of the landmark report “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence.”

That document delivered a sobering verdict: AI companies, including those helmed by Trump’s billionaire allies like Elon Musk, may be systematically infringing copyrights by scraping vast troves of protected works to train generative models without permission or compensation.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling on September 15, 2025, temporarily reinstated Perlmutter, affirming her position’s placement within the legislative branch under the Library of Congress—thus shielding her from unilateral presidential removal.

But the administration, undeterred, raced to the high court, arguing in a brief by Solicitor General D. John Sauer that Perlmutter “wields executive power” through regulatory enforcement and thus falls under Trump’s removal authority.

This marks the 31st emergency appeal from the Trump White House to SCOTUS in less than a year, a record that underscores a broader campaign to test the boundaries of Article II, including parallel bids to oust FTC and Federal Reserve officials.

On November 26, the Supreme Court deferred action, opting to hold Perlmutter’s case alongside those related disputes—a procedural punt that keeps her in the role for now, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting without explanation.

As the nation grapples with AI’s explosive growth—projected to add $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030, per PwC—this saga isn’t just a personnel spat; it’s a flashpoint in the war over who controls the digital frontier, pitting Silicon Valley titans against creators and raising alarms about the erosion of democratic checks.

The Firing That Ignited the Clash: A Report Too Hot to Handle

The saga traces back to May 9, 2025, when the Copyright Office previewed its AI report’s third installment, a 150-page analysis drawing on public comments from over 10,000 stakeholders.

It concluded that “the copying involved in AI training threatens significant potential harm to the market for or value of copyrighted works,” potentially violating fair use doctrines unless companies secure licenses.

Where outputs mimic styles or substitute for originals, the report warned, “it can lead to lost sales” or “dilute the market” for human-created content—echoing lawsuits against OpenAI, Meta, and Stability AI from authors like Sarah Silverman and organizations such as the New York Times.

Perlmutter’s ouster came the next day, via a curt email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office: “Your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately.”

Critics, including Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY), decried it as a “brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis,” timed to quash scrutiny of AI firms’ data hunger. Morelle highlighted the “no coincidence” of the firing following Perlmutter’s refusal to “rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works.”

This wasn’t Perlmutter’s first brush with controversy; appointed in 2020 by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, she had steered the office through digital upheavals, including DMCA exemptions for accessibility tech.

But the AI report struck at the heart of Trump’s tech alliances: Just weeks earlier, on September 15, 2025, he hosted a lavish Mar-a-Lago dinner for 33 AI CEOs, including Musk (xAI/Tesla), Sam Altman (OpenAI), and Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), where deregulation loomed large. Attendees pledged $500 million to a “Trump AI Innovation Fund,” ostensibly for national security, but insiders whisper it doubles as a war chest against IP constraints.

Elon Musk’s Radical Vision: Repeal All IP Laws?

At the epicenter of this storm is Elon Musk, whose xAI and Grok models have faced cease-and-desist letters from publishers alleging unlicensed scraping. Musk, a vocal Trump surrogate who co-chairs the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has long railed against IP as a drag on progress.

In April 2025, he echoed Jack Dorsey’s X post—”delete all IP law”—with a simple “I agree,” igniting a firestorm. Dorsey, ex-Twitter CEO, argued IP funnels payments to “gatekeepers” unfairly, proposing “much greater models to pay creators” via decentralized tech.

Musk’s disdain dates to 2014, when he called patents “for the weak” and open-sourced Tesla’s EV tech. Yet irony abounds: Tesla holds 579 U.S. patents, and Musk sued a supplier in 2023 over infringement.

His April stance, amid OpenAI lawsuits (which he co-founded but now battles), drew fire from creators like Ed Newton-Rex of Fairly Trained, who branded it “all-out war on creators who don’t want their life’s work pillaged for profit.”

Writer Lincoln Michel quipped, “None of Jack or Elon’s companies would exist without IP law—they just hate artists.”

In the Trump orbit, Musk’s views carry weight. DOGE, his efficiency czar role with Vivek Ramaswamy, eyes slashing “redundant” IP regs, potentially fast-tracking AI exemptions.

The Mar-a-Lago summit reportedly brainstormed “AI Freedom Act” legislation to deem training data “fair use” by default, aligning with the report’s critics who decry it as a “chilling effect” on innovation.

Legal Showdown: Executive vs. Legislative Branch in the Age of AI

The administration’s SCOTUS plea hinges on separation-of-powers doctrine, asserting the Copyright Office’s “executive functions”—like registering claims and litigating in court—trump its legislative advisory role.

Sauer argues Trump can fire the Librarian of Congress (whom he ousted in May, installing acting appointee Carla Hayden’s successor amid chaos), who in turn removes the Register.

Perlmutter’s team, backed by Democracy Forward, counters that her dual-branch perch—advising Congress on bills like the No AI FRAUD Act—insulates her, per precedents like Humphrey’s Executor (1935) limiting at-will firings.

This echoes Trump’s broader purge: 31 emergency dockets, from FTC Chair Lina Khan to Fed Governor Lisa Cook, testing post-Watergate reforms. Critics like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) call it “authoritarian cosplay,” eroding independence to favor donors.

The full report, finalized October despite the turmoil, recommends opt-out registries and licensing mandates—proposals now stalled in a GOP-led Congress wary of curbing Big Tech.

Public reaction? Polarized. A October Pew poll showed 62% of Americans favor stronger AI copyright protections, with creators (artists, authors) at 78%, versus 41% of tech workers.

On X, #SaveCopyright trended with 1.2M posts, blending memes of Musk as IP pirate with serious calls for reform. Hollywood unions rallied in D.C., warning of “existential threat” to 2.7M jobs.

Billionaire Influence, Innovation vs. Creators, and the Future of IP

This isn’t isolated—it’s symptomatic of tech’s IP endgame. AI firms ingested 45% of the internet’s text by 2024 (per Common Crawl data), fueling $200B+ valuations but spawning 50+ lawsuits.

The report’s “market harm” framework could mandate billions in royalties, clashing with Musk’s “repeal all” ethos that views IP as “rent-seeking.” Economists like Michele Boldrin argue monopolies stifle, but studies (e.g., USPTO 2023) link strong IP to 40% higher R&D investment.

---

HAPPENING NOW

• Trump Admin’s WISeR Pilot Targets ‘Waste’ with Prior Authorization—But at What Cost to Seniors?
• Google Will Reinstate Banned Political YouTube Accounts
• Trump Tariffs Spike Prices: 2025 Christmas Tree Market Feels the Squeeze

---

For Trump, it’s political: Alienating Musk risks DOGE’s $2T cuts pledge, but backing him alienates creators in swing states like Georgia (film hub). Bipartisan bills like the AI Labeling Act gain traction, but WISeR-like pilots hint at regulatory capture.

Broader stakes? Without IP bulwarks, small creators—indie authors earning $12K/year median—face dilution, while giants thrive on “collective intelligence.” As AI outputs flood markets (e.g., 90% of 2025 ebook sales synthetic, per Nielsen), the report’s dilution warning rings prophetic.

With SCOTUS punting to 2026, Perlmutter holds the fort, but oral arguments loom. A win for Trump could cascade, empowering firings across “independent” agencies. For AI, it might greenlight unchecked training, but at democracy’s cost—echoing January 6’s institutional scars.

This plea isn’t just about one report; it’s a referendum on whether billionaires bend branches to their code. As Musk tweets “IP is the past,” creators retort: Without it, the future’s a copy-paste dystopia. For updates on SCOTUS dockets or AI suits, watch Docket Alarm or the Copyright Office site. In the remix era, one thing’s clear: Originals still matter.