Trump Admin Battles Ousted Copyright Chief’s Bid to Reclaim Post in Ongoing Legal Clash

The core of the dispute lies in a fundamental constitutional question: Who controls the Copyright Office — Congress or the executive branch? Perlmutter contends that the Copyright Office, as part of the legislative branch under the Library of Congress, should be insulated from presidential control. Trump’s legal team, however, maintains that the office is subject to executive authority under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, giving the president power to appoint and remove its leadership.

A federal judge previously denied Perlmutter’s request for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, citing her inability to prove immediate irreparable harm. Nevertheless, her legal team is pressing forward, hoping for a more favorable ruling on broader constitutional grounds. Hearings on a preliminary injunction are expected in the coming weeks.

Perlmutter, a respected copyright expert and former chief policy officer at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, had been leading major initiatives on AI, digital rights, and modernization of copyright enforcement when she was removed. Her dismissal sparked outcry from some lawmakers, creators, and copyright advocates who viewed the move as an attack on the independence of the office and an attempt to reshape copyright policy in favor of deregulation.

Trump’s opposition to Perlmutter’s return aligns with broader efforts by his allies to gain influence over regulatory bodies shaping the future of artificial intelligence, fair use, and intellectual property. Critics fear the outcome of this legal battle could shift the balance of power between Congress and the presidency in managing cultural and creative policy.

Supporters of Perlmutter argue that the decision to remove her could set a dangerous precedent, allowing future presidents to install loyalists in positions that have traditionally been politically neutral. Meanwhile, the Trump team has accused her of politicizing the office and defying lawful oversight.