What looked like a bold attempt by Elon Musk to influence the U.S. Copyright Office has now turned into a political disaster. The move not only failed but also triggered unexpected backlash from conservative allies who were once seen as tech-friendly.
The chain of events started when former President Donald Trump suddenly removed two top officials from the Copyright Office. Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden was fired, followed by the dismissal of Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter. The timing of these firings raised eyebrows in Washington. Just days earlier, the Copyright Office had released a report warning that some uses of copyrighted content for training artificial intelligence systems may not fall under fair use.
That report was significant. It signaled that the federal government was not ready to give AI companies a free pass to scrape massive amounts of protected material. For companies like Musk’s xAI, which rely heavily on large datasets, this was a direct threat.
Insiders believe the firings were not a coincidence. Sources told The Verge that Musk and David Sacks, who serves as Trump’s advisor on AI and crypto, pushed for the removals in order to eliminate resistance to AI companies using copyrighted content without permission or payment. The goal was to clear the way for a more tech-friendly interpretation of copyright law.
However, things did not go according to plan.
Shortly after the firings, two men arrived at the Library of Congress claiming to be the new acting leaders of the Copyright Office. Paul Perkins, a former fraud prosecutor at the Department of Justice, was introduced as the new acting Register of Copyrights. Brian Nieves, who worked closely with Representative Jim Jordan on Big Tech investigations, was appointed as acting deputy librarian. Overseeing both was Todd Blanche, a close Trump ally who defended him during the 2024 criminal trial and now holds a senior position in the Department of Justice.
None of these appointments came from the Department of Government Efficiency, the agency Musk had hoped would oversee the transition. Instead, they were pushed by the populist wing of the Republican Party. This group, once aligned with tech disruptors, is now firmly opposed to what they see as Silicon Valley’s exploitation of creators and small businesses.
In fact, the replacements are known to be openly skeptical of Big Tech. As one government affairs lobbyist put it, Todd Blanche was brought in specifically to hold the tech industry accountable. Far from celebrating Musk’s influence, these new appointees represent a tougher and more suspicious stance toward the companies behind generative AI.
Conservative legal activist Mike Davis voiced his frustration online, accusing tech companies of trying to steal content for profit. He said the justification that AI companies must compete with China was not an excuse to violate copyright law. According to Davis, taking creators’ work without permission is not fair use but outright infringement.
Democrats were equally outraged, but for different reasons. Representative Joe Morelle called the firings an attack on an independent agency that had refused to approve Musk’s strategy for AI training. Senator Ron Wyden questioned whether the president even had the legal authority to remove the Librarian of Congress or the Register of Copyrights, noting that the Library belongs to the legislative branch and operates under different rules than typical executive agencies.
This legal issue may lead to a broader constitutional conflict. By law, only the Librarian of Congress can appoint or remove the Register of Copyrights. The president’s involvement in the process is already being challenged as unconstitutional. Legal experts have pointed out that the Library of Congress predates the modern administrative state and does not fit neatly within the executive branch’s powers.
Even more ironic is the fact that the Copyright Office report at the center of this controversy was far from radical. While it acknowledged that much of the AI industry operates in a legal gray area, it stopped short of calling for immediate government intervention. The report simply warned that using copyrighted material on a large scale, especially for commercial purposes, was likely to cross legal boundaries. It also noted that licensing agreements were starting to emerge, suggesting the issue could be resolved without a major crackdown.
Despite that measured approach, the firing of Perlmutter was enough to spark chaos. In trying to eliminate one perceived obstacle, Musk may have triggered a much larger backlash. The people who replaced her are far less friendly to the interests of tech companies and could now become powerful critics of AI copyright practices.
One source familiar with the political dynamics put it bluntly. Sometimes when you push someone out, you do not get to choose who comes in next. And the new person might be an even bigger problem.
For now, the situation remains in limbo. The Library of Congress has not received guidance from Congress on how to proceed, and questions around presidential authority are still unresolved. What is clear, though, is that Musk’s plan to reshape copyright law in favor of AI has hit a wall.
Musk and xAI declined to comment on the situation.
