If Trump cuts funding to NPR and PBS, rural America will pay a devastating price; The Guardian, June 6, 2024

Margaret Sullivan , The Guardian; If Trump cuts funding to NPR and PBS, rural America will pay a devastating price

"With the sharp decline of the local newspaper business over the past 20 years, many parts of America have turned into what experts refer to as “news deserts”. These are places that have almost no sources of credible local reporting.

As local newspapers have shuttered or withered – at a rate of more than two every week – news deserts have grown. The effects are sobering. People who live in news deserts become more polarized in their political views and less engaged in their communities.

One of the foundations of democracy itself – truth – begins to disappear. People turn to social media for information and lies flow freely with nothing to serve as a reality check.

Right now, many small and rural communities that are on the brink of becoming news deserts do still have access to public media – particularly to National Public Radio’s network of member radio stations, which employ dedicated local reporters.

But the Trump administration’s new effort targeting public radio and television is a serious threat...

Voters – especially those in rural areas, small towns and red states – should let their elected representatives know that they need public radio and television to continue. That public media may even be their lifeline."

Leadership Limbo at the Library of Congress; Library Journal, May 23, 2025

Hallie Rich, Library Journal; Leadership Limbo at the Library of Congress

"REMAINING NONPARTISAN

According to reporting across major media outlets, staff continue to await guidance from the congressional committees charged with LoC oversight—and questions over the future of the Library as a nonpartisan legislative branch agency hang in the balance. The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the research arm of the Library that works exclusively for members of Congress, provides confidential policy and legal analysis to lawmakers and staff of both chambers, regardless of party affiliation...

WILL CONGRESS ACT?

Politico reported on May 21 that Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) “thinks Congress needs to take charge in naming the heads of major legislative branch agencies, including the Library of Congress and Government Accountability Office.” Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) recommended modifying the process for appointing the Librarian of Congress, citing legislation she wrote that removed presidential involvement in appointing the architect of the Capitol. “Just like we changed the rules with architect the Capitol, we should change them here,” she told reporters.

Legislation that would grant appointment authority for the Librarian of Congress, the leader of a legislative branch agency, exclusively to Congress is one potential path forward.

Library professionals who are concerned about the independence of the Library of Congress should "reach out to your member of Congress,” says one source who spoke on the condition of anonymity, “and do so quickly.” The White House’s effort to install new leadership at the Library was staved off because staff are awaiting direction from Congress.

The Librarian of Congress is not appointed at the sole discretion of the president—an appointment requires Senate confirmation. According to reporting by The New York Times, LoC staff are currently following internal procedures by keeping Newlen in charge, but more permanent answers to questions about the future of the Library as a nonpartisan legislative branch agency appear to lie, at this time, with members of Congress."

US Copyright Office director sues Trump administration over firing; Reuters, May 22, 2025

  Blake Brittain, Reuters; US Copyright Office director sues Trump administration over firing

"The U.S. Copyright Office director fired by the Trump administration sued President Donald Trump and other government officials on Thursday, arguing her firing was unconstitutional and should not be allowed to take effect.

Shira Perlmutter said in the lawsuit that her termination by email on May 10 was "blatantly unlawful," and that only the U.S. Congress can remove her from office."

Congress Must Change Copyright Law for AI | Opinion; Newsweek, January 16, 2025

 Nicholas Creel  Assistant Professor of Business Law, Georgia College and State University , Newsweek; Congress Must Change Copyright Law for AI | Opinion

"Luckily, the Constitution points the way forward. In Article I, Section 8, Congress is explicitly empowered "to promote the Progress of Science" through copyright law. That is to say, the power to create copyrights isn't just about protecting content creators, it's also about advancing human knowledge and innovation.

When the Founders gave Congress this power, they couldn't have imagined artificial intelligence, but they clearly understood that intellectual property laws would need to evolve to promote scientific progress. Congress therefore not only has the authority to adapt copyright law for the AI age, it has the duty to ensure our intellectual property framework promotes rather than hinders technological progress.

Consider what's at risk with inaction...

While American companies are struggling with copyright constraints, China is racing ahead with AI development, unencumbered by such concerns. The Chinese Communist Party has made it clear that they view AI supremacy as a key strategic goal, and they're not going to let intellectual property rights stand in their way.

The choice before us is clear, we can either reform our copyright laws to enable responsible AI development at home or we can watch as the future of AI is shaped by authoritarian powers abroad. The cost of inaction isn't just measured in lost innovation or economic opportunity, it is measured in our diminishing ability to ensure AI develops in alignment with democratic values and a respect for human rights.

The ideal solution here isn't to abandon copyright protection entirely, but to craft a careful exemption for AI training. This could even include provisions for compensating content creators through a mandated licensing framework or revenue-sharing system, ensuring that AI companies can access the data they need while creators can still benefit from and be credited for their work's use in training these models.

Critics will argue that this represents a taking from creators for the benefit of tech companies, but this misses the broader picture. The benefits of AI development flow not just to tech companies but to society as a whole. We should recognize that allowing AI models to learn from human knowledge serves a crucial public good, one we're at risk of losing if Congress doesn't act."

We Stood Up for Access to the Law and Congress Listened: 2024 in Review; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), December 25, 2024

 KATHARINE TRENDACOSTA , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); We Stood Up for Access to the Law and Congress Listened: 2024 in Review

"Because you wrote in, because experts sent letters explaining the problems, enough members of Congress recognized that Pro Codes is not uncontroversial. It is not a small deal to allow industry giants to own parts of the law."

Rep. Ken Buck says he will not serve out rest of term, narrowing GOP majority; The Washington Post, March 14, 2024

Amy B Wang

 and 

Patrick Svitek

, The Washington Post; Rep. Ken Buck says he will not serve out rest of term, narrowing GOP majority

"“Our nation is on a collision course with reality, and a steadfast commitment to truth, even uncomfortable truths, is the only way forward,” Buck said then. “Too many Republican leaders are lying to America.”

Buck also cited Republicans’ downplaying the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, in which a pro-Trump mob sought to stop the certification of Biden’s electoral win, as well as the GOP’s claims that the ensuing prosecutions amounted to a weaponization of the justice system.

“These insidious narratives breed widespread cynicism and erode Americans’ confidence in the rule of law,” Buck said. “It is impossible for the Republican Party to confront our problems and offer a course correction for the future while being obsessively fixated on retribution and vengeance for contrived injustices of the past.”"

The fingerprints on a letter to Congress about AI; Politico, October 23, 2023

 BRENDAN BORDELON, Politico; The fingerprints on a letter to Congress about AI

"The message in the open letter sent to Congress on Sept. 11 was clear: Don’t put new copyright regulations on artificial intelligence systems.

The letter’s signatories were real players, a broad coalition of think tanks, professors and civil-society groups with a stake in the growing debate about AI and copyright in Washington.

Undisclosed, however, were the fingerprints of Sy Damle, a tech-friendly Washington lawyer and former government official who works for top firms in the industry — including OpenAI, one of the top developers of cutting-edge AI models. Damle is currently representing OpenAI in ongoing copyright lawsuits...

The effort by an OpenAI lawyer to covertly sway Congress against new laws on AI and copyright comes in the midst of an escalating influence campaign — tied to OpenAI and other top AI firms — that critics fear is shifting Washington’s attention away from current AI harms and toward existential threats posed by future AI systems...

Many of the points made in the September letter echo those made recently by Damle in other venues, including an argument comparing the rise of AI to the invention of photography."

In Show of Force, Silicon Valley Titans Pledge ‘Getting This Right’ With A.I.; The New York Times, September 13, 2023

Cecilia Kang, The New York Times ; In Show of Force, Silicon Valley Titans Pledge ‘Getting This Right’ With A.I.

"Elon Musk warned of civilizational risks posed by artificial intelligence. Sundar Pichai of Google highlighted the technology’s potential to solve health and energy problems. And Mark Zuckerberg of Meta stressed the importance of open and transparent A.I. systems.

The tech titans held forth on Wednesday in a three-hour meeting with lawmakers in Washington about A.I. and future regulations. The gathering, known as the A.I. Insight Forum, was part of a crash course for Congress on the technology and organized by the Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York.

The meeting — also attended by Bill Gates, a founder of Microsoft; Sam Altman of OpenAI; Satya Nadella of Microsoft; and Jensen Huang of Nvidia — was a rare congregation of more than a dozen top tech executives in the same room. It amounted to one of the industry’s most proactive shows of force in the nation’s capital as companies race to be at the forefront of A.I. and to be seen to influence its direction."

Transcript: US Senate Judiciary Hearing on Oversight of A.I.; Tech Policy Press, September 13, 2023

Gabby Miller, Tech Policy Press; Transcript: US Senate Judiciary Hearing on Oversight of A.I.

"Artificial Intelligence (AI) is in the spotlight only a week into the U.S. Congress’ return from recess. On Tuesday, the Senate held two AI-focused Subcommittee hearings just a day before the first AI Insight Forum hosted by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY).

Tuesday’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law was led by Chairman Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Ranking Member Josh Hawley (R-MO), another of a series of hearings in the committee on how best to govern artificial intelligence. It also corresponded with their formal introduction of a bipartisan bill by Sens. Blumenthal and Hawley that would deny AI companies Section 230 immunity. 

• Woodrow Hartzog, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law Fellow, Cordell Institute for Policy in Medicine & Law, Washington University in St. Louis (written testimony)
• William Dally, Chief Scientist and Senior Vice President of Research, NVIDIA Corporation (written testimony)
• Brad Smith, Vice Chair and President, Microsoft Corporation (written testimony)

(Microsoft’s Smith will also be in attendance for Sen. Schumer’s first AI Insight Forum on Wednesday and NVIDIA’s CEO, Jensen Huang, will be joining him.)"

Two Justices Clash on Congress’s Power Over Supreme Court Ethics; The New York Times, August 26, 2023

Adam Liptak , The New York Times; Two Justices Clash on Congress’s Power Over Supreme Court Ethics

"Congress has enacted laws that apply to the justices, including ones on financial disclosures and recusal. In a way, the most telling ethics legislation came from the first Congress, in 1789, requiring all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to take an oath promising “that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me.""

Film and music industries on edge: AI's growing influence stirs fear of job displacement, copyright issues; KATU2ABC, August 8, 2023

 KONNER MCINTIRE and JANAE BOWENS , KATU2ABC; Film and music industries on edge: AI's growing influence stirs fear of job displacement, copyright issues

"Currently, the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act provides some protection to musicians. It was made law in 2018 and helps to ensure musicians are fairly compensated by publishers.

The law directly addresses piracy which has cost artists billions of dollars.

Five years later, Congressional leaders, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.,who serves as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, are concerned the law will not protect musicians against AI.

“For Congress, we’re now looking at old challenges with new dangers, including the ever-present threat of piracy as well as artificial intelligence, which pose still unknown questions for intellectual property protection efforts even as they open doors to a new world of technological capability that is, at present, limitless,” the congressman recently wrote in an op-ed.“If we don’t get AI right, it could very well render not only the Music Modernization Act obsolete – but also the policy choices we make next.”"

No, Justice Alito. Congress should not butt out on Supreme Court ethics.; The Washington Post, July 30, 2023

Ruth Marcus , The Washington Post; No, Justice Alito. Congress should not butt out on Supreme Court ethics.

"Since 1948, Congress has required federal judges — including Supreme Court justices — to recuse themselves from deciding cases in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Is that unconstitutional? Since 1978, it has required federal judges — including justices — to file financial disclosure forms. Is that unconstitutional? (The justices, including Alito, say they voluntarilyfollow those rules.) Since 1989, it has imposed strict limits on outside income and gifts for federal judges — including justices. Is that unconstitutional? Just last year, Congress amended the ethics rules to mandate that federal judges — including justices — promptly disclose their stock transactions. Is that unconstitutional?

Why would it be? The Alito argument, such as it is, proves too much. It would mean that Congress could not make it a crime for justices to accept bribes. And why would Congress have power to impose ethics rules on the executive branch but not on the judiciary — or are those unconstitutional, too?

We don’t want Congress punishing the court for issuing decisions with which lawmakers disagree. Respect for the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary counsels caution in this area. But it does not dictate hands off, no matter what Alito might wish."

Lindsey Graham and Elizabeth Warren: When It Comes to Big Tech, Enough Is Enough; The New York Times, July 27, 2023

Lindsey Graham and Elizabeth Warren , The New York Times; Lindsey Graham and Elizabeth Warren: When It Comes to Big Tech, Enough Is Enough

"For more than a century, Congress has established regulatory agencies to preserve innovation while minimizing harm presented by emerging industries. In 1887 the Interstate Commerce Commission took on railroads. In 1914 the Federal Trade Commission took on unfair methods of competition and later unfair and deceptive acts and practices. In 1934 the Federal Communications Commission took on radio (and then television). In 1975 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission took on nuclear power, and in 1977 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission took on electricity generation and transmission. We need a nimble, adaptable, new agency with expertise, resources and authority to do the same for Big Tech.

Our Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act would create an independent, bipartisan regulator charged with licensing and policing the nation’s biggest tech companies — like Meta, Google and Amazon — to prevent online harm, promote free speech and competition, guard Americans’ privacy and protect national security. The new watchdog would focus on the unique threats posed by tech giants while strengthening the tools available to the federal agencies and state attorneys general who have authority to regulate Big Tech.

Our legislation would guarantee common-sense safeguards for everyone who uses tech platforms."

Editorial: The Supreme Court has ignored ethics oversight. Time for Congress to act; Los Angeles Times, July 20, 2023

THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD , Los Angeles Times; Editorial: The Supreme Court has ignored ethics oversight. Time for Congress to act

"Congress must begin the process of enacting reforms that the court itself has refused to undertake."

Does Section 230 cover artificial intelligence? Experts are not sure; ABC7, July 11, 2023

GRAYCE MCCORMICK , ABC7; Does Section 230 cover artificial intelligence? Experts are not sure

"Burk said the decision over whether Section 230 covers generative AI boils down to whether the product is an informational product or a product with manufacturer liability...

It’s hard for us to imagine what social media would be like today without the protection of Section 230, or if it would have even been possible to develop without the risk of lawsuits.

On the other hand, there could be benefits to dictating how it’s developed, considering certain social media platforms’ documented harms.

“If you can identify discrete problems and you have an idea of the outcome that you would like to have or the outcomes you’re worried about, you can actually shape the development of technology into a socially desirable path,” Burk said. He cited products like automobiles and pharmaceuticals, which are now manufactured to be as safe as possible."

Three things to know about how the US Congress might regulate AI; MIT Technology Review, July 3, 2023

• Tate Ryan-Mosleyarchive page

, MIT Technology Review ; Three things to know about how the US Congress might regulate AI

"Here are three key themes in all this chatter that you should know to help you understand where US AI legislation could be going."

This Obscure Judicial Agency Could Tighten Ethics for Justices; Bloomberg Law, June 14, 2023

 Sheldon Whitehouse, Bloomberg Law; This Obscure Judicial Agency Could Tighten Ethics for Justices

"As the justices drag their feet on making changes, a little-known agency within the judicial branch of government could have an outsize role in ethical reform. The Judicial Conference of the United States administers laws that Congress has passed regarding judicial ethics. In administering those laws, the Judicial Conference has statutory power to set up rules and procedures that govern both judges and Supreme Court justices.

By statute, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court chairs this body, which comprises chief judges from the circuit courts of appeals and judges from district courts within each circuit.

The Judicial Conference, established by Congress in 1922, meets twice a year to consider policy issues affecting the judiciary, including ethical issues. For example, the Judicial Conference amended the Judicial Code of Conduct in 2019 following allegations from judicial clerks that the federal judiciary needed to do more to protect against workplace harassment.

Contrary to what Supreme Court justices suggested in their recent “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices,” this power is crystal-clear, and the Supreme Court has long abided by it.

The chief justice’s recent public statement that more needs to be done on Supreme Court ethics signals an important opening for the Judicial Conference, the judiciary’s rule-setter in many of these areas."

If the Supreme Court Won’t Fix Its Ethics Mess, Congress Should; The New York Times, June 12, 2023

 Erwin Chemerinsky, The New York Times; If the Supreme Court Won’t Fix Its Ethics Mess, Congress Should

"Congress should not wait on the court any longer. It has the authority to hold justices to a code of conduct. If it fails to do so, it will share responsibility for the ethics mess at the Supreme Court...

The case for the Code of Conduct for federal judges is made succinctly in its first sentence: “An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.” That should apply equally to the nation’s highest court."

Roberts invited to testify at Senate hearing on Supreme Court ethics; NPR, April 20, 2023

Dustin Jones, NPR ; Roberts invited to testify at Senate hearing on Supreme Court ethics

"The chair of the Senate Judiciary committee has invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify at a hearing next month focused on the ethical rules governing the Supreme Court as well as potential changes to those guidelines. 

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. said in a letter to Roberts on Thursday that recent reports found the justices are "falling short" of the ethical standards they and other public servants are supposed to follow. 

"The status quo is no longer tenable," Durbin wrote.

The call for Roberts' testimony comes at a turbulent time for the court and its members. Concerns surrounding the lifetime appointees involve Justice Clarence Thomas, who, according to an investigation by ProPublica, failed to disclose 20 years of luxury trips with billionaire and Republican donor Harlan Crow."

Gutting Congress’ Ethics Office Was a Disaster – and an Opportunity; Just Security, January 19, 2023

Gabe Lezra, Just Security; Gutting Congress’ Ethics Office Was a Disaster – and an Opportunity

"The new House Republican majority, finally seated after days of embarrassing negotiations that resulted in Representative Kevin McCarthy being sworn in as Speaker, made their priorities clear on Jan. 9. With their first official vote, they approved a House rules package that effectively gutted the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), the independent body that helps ensure that members of the House don’t abuse their positions. It was a striking decision that sent a clear message: the new far-right majority will demand that the other branches of government live up to ethical standards and practices that they themselves have no intention of following.

McCarthy’s attack on OCE consisted of two components: first, the resolution forcedthree of the four Democrats who currently sit on the OCE Board to vacate their positions immediately. This move, which was facially based on a decision to implement term limits, undermined the bipartisan nature of OCE’s leadership and left the Board in an extremely difficult and partisan position to hire staff. Second, the new rules require OCE to hire all of its staff within 30 days – and it would likely only be able to do that after it has hired sufficient Board members. This absurd requirement fails to recognize that OCE relies on employees with a detailed and relatively rare legal skillset, making hiring a complex and time-intensive process. On top of the impossibly rushed hiring process, the provision appears written to prevent OCE from hiring any new staff after the 30-day window closes – meaning that the agency wouldn’t be able to replace staff who retire or change jobs for the entirety of the 118th Congress.

This is not the first time Republicans have attempted to destroy OCE. In 2017, Republicans voted behind closed doors to strip OCE of its independence and place it under the control of the House Ethics Committee, a move they only abandoned when former President Donald Trump denounced it on Twitter. House Republicans’ bizarre obsession with OCE ignores the fact that OCE is not a powerful institution. It is, at base, a screen to save Congressional resources. OCE prevents members and their staff from using their limited time and resources to sift through allegations of members’ potential ethics violations, determine if any are credible, and conduct preliminary investigations. OCE is supposed to save Congress time.

Despite the plethora of serious allegations that the Ethics Committee considers, the Committee itself is incredibly weak and generally unwilling to punish members. This failure is not OCE’s fault. OCE does not levy punishments, nor does it recommend them. One of its first chairs, David Skaggs, famously explained that OCE’s function is to “supplement but not supplant” the Ethics Committee. OCE’s subservient relationship to the dysfunctional Ethics Committee means that OCE’s power goes only as far as the members of the Ethics Committee will allow it. Which, in most cases, is not far at all.

This begs the question: Why was gutting OCE the new majority’s first vote in the 118th Congress? The answer is simple. They wanted to dismantle one of the key ways that members of Congress can be held accountable when they abuse their positions of trust – and they succeeded. It could not have come at a worse time."