News publishers accuse Trump admin of bias toward AI companies in copyright suit; Politico, September 28, 2026

HASSAN ALI KANU, Politico; News publishers accuse Trump admin of bias toward AI companies in copyright suit

The Justice Department earlier this month filed a statement in court supporting OpenAI’s defense in the publishers' copyright lawsuit.

"Lawyers for The New York Times and other major publishers on Monday asked a federal court to disregard the Justice Department’s efforts to get involved in their lawsuit against OpenAI, saying the Trump administration may simply be biased in the company’s favor.

The publishers are suing OpenAI for copyright infringement. The Justice Department earlier this month filed a statement supporting OpenAI’s defense in the case, arguing that copying others’ content without permission in order to train large language models is protected under the “fair use” doctrine.

The newspapers on Monday responded that DOJ had discounted the Copyright Office’s contrary conclusion on fair use and AI, and noting that the government is seeking to weigh in at an especially early stage of the case.

“That the DOJ fails to acknowledge any possible contrary views, and dismisses the Copyright Office’s comprehensive study in a footnote, suggests that the DOJ may have been influenced by extraneous considerations — up to and including the Administration’s political and financial interests,” lawyers for the publishers wrote. “Although one could argue that political factors will always influence Government litigation positions to some extent, the nature, extent, and transparency of the AI industry’s efforts to influence this Administration should not be lightly dismissed.”...

The plaintiffs include The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and other newspapers, as well as a group of authors that includes Sylvia Day, John Grisham and George R. R. Martin."

Scoop: DOJ's copyright filing took key agencies by surprise; Axios, September 19, 2026

Sara Fischer, Kerry Flynn, Axios; Scoop: DOJ's copyright filing took key agencies by surprise

"The Department of Justice's statement of interest supporting OpenAI and Microsoft in the New York Times' copyright infringement lawsuit surprised critical agencies like the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Copyright Office, sources told Axios.

Why it matters: Statements of interest allow the government to declare an official position on a legal matter in private lawsuits. While not binding, they can hold significant weight and help persuade cases.

Zoom in: The Times' lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft argues AI firms illegally stole their copyrighted works to train their large language models, and that AI-generated outputs unlawfully produced market substitutions.

• The DOJ's SOI argues copyrighted works to train models should be considered fair use because that practice is new and transformative, but also says outputs aren't necessarily covered by that same legal argument.
• 
  
• Unlike many SOIs, no career antitrust attorneys signed the filing alongside senior DOJ officials.
• 
  

Between the lines: Publishers have criticized the claims in the SOI, including the idea that enforcing copyright laws is too cumbersome and would threaten America's AI dominance over foreign rivals."

Why the DOJ’s OpenAI copyright stance is the real threat to national security; ZDNET, September 15, 2026

David Gewirtz, ZDNET; Why the DOJ’s OpenAI copyright stance is the real threat to national security

The DOJ argues that AI training is transformative fair use, but publishers say unlicensed scraping threatens their survival. This copyright fight could shape the future of online knowledge.

"Ever since generative AI arrived in early 2023, we’ve seen that its almost unlimited base of knowledge is due to how the big AI companies trained their models. To a large degree, AI models like those from OpenAI and Anthropic have been trained on anything they could ingest, including nearly all the copyrighted material on the web.

The AI companies are even reported to be buying up physical books by the millions, cutting them apart, scanning them in, and then disposing of the remains. For example, based on a search of the Anthropic settlement database, I know the company scanned my book, The Flexible Enterprise, and included it in the Claude corpus. I was never asked for permission. I don’t even get a free Claude account.

Due to the bulk ingestion of intellectual property, many companies filed suit against the AI companies. One such company is Ziff Davis, the owner of ZDNET. Disclosure: Ziff is also the company that pays me each week for my writing here.

Two weeks ago, on Sept. 1, 2026, the US Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case is being litigated. What makes this statement particularly interesting is that the DOJ is not one of the parties in the case. The government is putting its thumb on the scale, weighing in on a lawsuit between private parties.

On Monday, Fortune published a commentary by Vivek Shah, CEO of Ziff Davis, regarding the Justice Department’s unusual intervention in the case. In this article, I’ll briefly summarize the DOJ’s statement, then discuss Shah’s premise, and then pick up and expand upon it with some of my own thoughts."

Justice Dept. Sides With OpenAI in New York Times Copyright Suit; The New York Times, September 2, 2026

 Karen Weise and Mike Isaac, The New York Times; Justice Dept. Sides With OpenAI in New York Times Copyright Suit

"The Justice Department told a Manhattan federal court that it was in the national interest for the judge to find that OpenAI did not violate copyright law when it used articles by The New York Times and other publishers to develop artificial intelligence systems.

The filing late Tuesday was the first time the Justice Department weighed in on the use of copyrighted material by A.I. companies, which has led to several lawsuits, including one brought by The Times.

The Justice Department argued that developing A.I. was critical to national security, and that training A.I. systems sufficiently transformed the written works to new material allowed under copyright law. It said the benefits of A.I. “far outweigh any competitive harm.”

The government’s intervention is an escalation in the landmark litigation that could determine whether OpenAI violated the law when it was developing its A.I. systems and had harmed the news industry and other content creators...

The Times’s lawsuit is one of many amid a wave of legal action against A.I. companies over copyright claims."

White House must comply with Presidential Records Act, judge rules; Politico, May 20, 2026

  JOSH GERSTEIN, Politico; White House must comply with Presidential Records Act, judge rules

"A federal judge has ordered aides to President Donald Trump to continue to observe the requirements of the Presidential Records Act, despite a Justice Department opinion that found the law unconstitutionally intrudes on presidential power.

In a ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John Bates concluded that the 1978 statute is likely constitutional and granted a preliminary injunction that essentially nullifies the opinion issued last month by DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel."

Elon Musk and the US government fought an AI anti-discrimination law. The arguments don’t hold up; The Guardian, May 20, 2026

 Genevieve Smith, The Guardian; Elon Musk and the US government fought an AI anti-discrimination law. The arguments don’t hold up

 "This April, the US Department of Justice joined Elon Musk’s xAI in suing the state of Colorado to kill its AI anti-discrimination law.

When the federal government sides with a billionaire against a state trying to protect its residents from AI discrimination, that’s not only a Colorado story. That’s everyone’s story.

The justice department’s lawsuit is part of a coordinated federal effort to reframe AI consumer protections as ideological overreach. In July 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order on “preventing woke AI”, equating bias mitigation measures to a leftist “woke” agenda that suppresses free speech and truth. The federal National Policy Framework launched in March included a push to pre-empt state laws on AI, with Colorado’s law targeted. The justice department’s intervention in Colorado marks the first time the federal government has sought to intervene in a lawsuit challenging a state AI law."

Trump’s anti-DEI movement comes for AI; Politico, April 27, 2026

 AARON MAK , Politico ; Trump’s anti-DEI movement comes for AI

"The legal crusade against affirmative action is coming for artificial intelligence.

On Friday, the Justice Department intervened in xAI’s challenge to Colorado’s “Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence” law. In its complaint, the DOJ argues the law’s provisions curbing algorithmic bias violates people’s 14th Amendment right to be treated equally under the law.

The intervention is in some ways an outgrowth of the movement to eradicate all race-conscious policies after the landmark Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard in 2023 struck down affirmative action in college admissions."

Exclusive: Trump's DOJ says he's not required to turn over official records; Axios, April 1, 2026

 Alex Isenstadt , Axios; Exclusive: Trump's DOJ says he's not required to turn over official records

[Kip Currier: This is an appalling anti-democratic determination by Trump 2.0's DOJ. The post-Watergate Presidential Records Act of 1978 was enacted through bipartisan legislating, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, to curb government corruption and promote transparency, in the wake of actions by Pres. Richard M. Nixon and his administration. The Act codifies that presidential records are the property of the federal government, not the President and the Executive Branch, and are public records.

Democratically-elected officials must be accountable to their citizenries. The Presidential Records Act represents a vital means, among others, for holding Presidents and their administrations accountable for their actions by ensuring preservation of and access to their records by present and future generations.]

"President Trump's Justice Department has concluded that a federal law requiring presidential records to be turned over to the government is unconstitutional, a senior White House official tells Axios.

Why it matters: The finding is an indication Trump will be reluctant to give all of his official records to the National Archives at the end of his term, as presidents have done for nearly a half-century under the Presidential Records Act of 1978.

The law, passed in the post-Watergate era as a hedge against government corruption, states that every official record regarding a president's decisions or policies belongs to the U.S. government, not the president."

Trump Administration, in Apparent Reversal, Tries to Continue Fight Against Law Firms; The New York Times, March 3, 2026

 Michael S. Schmidt,Jonah E. Bromwich and Devlin Barrett, The New York Times; Trump Administration, in Apparent Reversal, Tries to Continue Fight Against Law Firms

The administration told a court on Monday that it was abandoning its defense of executive orders targeting the firms. But on Tuesday, the Justice Department appeared to abruptly change its position.

"The Trump administration indicated on Tuesday that it planned to renew its defense of executive orders that it had leveled against law firms, a sharp reversal a day after indicating that it would drop that fight in court, according to people familiar with the matter.

The situation remained fluid Tuesday morning. It was not immediately clear what legal strategy the administration would ultimately embrace or whether a court would allow the Justice Department to reverse course.

The Justice Department did not immediately comment. The White House declined to comment...

It was not immediately clear on Tuesday what had prompted the about-face. But one question that the administration’s decision a day earlier to abandon its cases raised was whether the deals it made with nine law firms would survive and whether those contracts — which were not made public — were considered unconstitutional given that the district court ruling would be final."

The Unraveling of the Justice Department: Sixty attorneys describe a year of chaos and suspicion.; The New York Times Magazine, November 16, 2025

 Emily Bazelon and Rachel Poser, Photographs by Stephen Voss , The New York Times Magazine; The Unraveling of the Justice Department: Sixty attorneys describe a year of chaos and suspicion.

President Trump’s second term has brought a period of turmoil and controversy unlike any in the history of the Justice Department. Trump and his appointees have blasted through the walls designed to protect the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency from political influence; they have directed the course of criminal investigations, openly flouted ethics rules and caused a breakdown of institutional culture. To date, more than 200 career attorneys have been fired, and thousands more have resigned. (The Justice Department says many of them have been replaced.)

What was it like inside this institution as Trump’s officials took control? It’s not an easy question to answer. Justice Department norms dictate that career attorneys, who are generally nonpartisan public servants, rarely speak to the press. And the Trump administration’s attempts to crack down on leaks have made all federal employees fearful of sharing information.

But the exodus of lawyers has created an opportunity to understand what’s happening within the agency. We interviewed more than 60 attorneys who recently resigned or were fired from the Justice Department. Much of what they told us is reported here for the first time..."

"“They didn’t want the ethics office calling them up and telling them what to do.” Joseph Tirrell, former director of the Departmental Ethics Office"

Cuban citizen convicted in U.S. streaming piracy scheme; UPI, November 16, 2024

Mike Heuer , UPI; Cuban citizen convicted in U.S. streaming piracy scheme

"A federal jury in Las Vegas found Yoany Vaillant guilty of conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement for his work on behalf of illegal streamer Jetflicks.

Vaillant, 43, is a Cuban citizen and knows 27 computer programming languages, which he used to streamline the subscription-based but illegal Jetflicks content for its subscribers who were located throughout the United States, the Department of Justice announced in a news release Friday...

Jetflicks is headquartered in Las Vegas and claimed to have 183,285 copyrighted episodes of television programming, which is much more than Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and any other streaming services.

Prosecutors provided evidence showing Vaillant and seven co-conspirators scoured pirate sites located around the world to access and download its extensive library of streaming titles without obtaining permission or paying respective copyright holders...

"The vast scale of Jetflicks' piracy affected every significant copyright owner of a television program in the United States," the DOJ said.

The illegal streaming caused "millions of dollars of losses to the U.S. television show and streaming industries," the agency said.

Vaillant was among eight defendants indicted in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in 2019."

Two Russian Nationals Charged with Running Massive E-Book Piracy Website; Department of Justice U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of New York, November 16, 2022

Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Eastern District of New York

Wednesday, November 16, 2022

"Two Russian Nationals Charged with Running Massive E-Book Piracy Website

Defendants Operated Z-Library, Which Offered Free Download of Copyrighted Works

Earlier today, in federal court in Brooklyn, an indictment and a complaint were unsealed charging Russian nationals Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova with criminal copyright infringement, wire fraud and money laundering for operating Z-Library, an online e-book piracy website.  The pair was arrested on November 3, 2022 in Cordoba, Argentina at the request of the United States.  At the same time, Z-Library’s network of online domains was also taken offline and seized by the U.S. government, pursuant to a court order that was also unsealed today.

Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Michael J. Driscoll, Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), announced the arrests and charges.

“As alleged, the defendants profited illegally off work they stole, often uploading works within mere hours of publication, and in the process victimized authors, publishers and booksellers,” stated United States Attorney Peace. “This Office is committed to protecting the intellectual property rights that enable creative and artistic expression, and holding individuals accountable for threatening those rights.”

“The defendants are alleged to have operated a website for over a decade whose central purpose was providing stolen intellectual property, in violation of copyright laws.  Intellectual property theft crimes deprive their victims of both ingenuity and hard-earned revenue. The FBI is determined to ensure those willing to steal and profit from the creativity of others are stopped and made to face the consequences in the criminal justice system,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Driscoll.

As alleged in the indictment and court filings, Z-Library bills itself as “the world’s largest library” and claims to offer more than 11 million e-books for download.  Z-Library, which has been active since approximately 2009, offers e-book files in a variety of file formats, stripped of their copyright protections, and encourages users to upload and download titles.  Many of the e-books offered by Z-Library are protected intellectual property for which authors hold copyrights and publishers hold exclusive distribution rights, and which Z-Library has no right or license to distribute, and which are available elsewhere only with anti-circumvention measures applied. As such, a central purpose of Z-Library is to allow users to download copyrighted books for free in violation of U.S. law.   In addition to its homepage, Z-Library operates as a complex network of approximately 249 interrelated web domains.  As part of this action, those domains were taken offline and seized by the U.S. government.

The charges in the indictment are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.  

The government’s case was initiated by the Office’s Cyber Crime Task Force.  Assistant United States Attorney Chand Edwards-Balfour, Alexander Mindlin, Antoinette N. Rangel and Kaitlin Farrell are prosecuting the case.  Brian Morris of the Office’s Asset Recovery Section is handling forfeiture matters.

The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs and Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, the FBI’s Legal Attachés abroad and foreign authorities in multiple countries provided critical assistance in this case.  In particular, the Office extends its appreciation to the Argentine authorities for their assistance in the capture of Napolsky and Ermakova.

Multiple organizations representing the victim authors and publishers also provided critical assistance in this case.  The Office extends its particular appreciation to The Authors Guild in New York and The Publishers Association in London for their assistance.  The Office also extends its appreciation to the National Cyber-Forensics & Training Alliance for its assistance in the domain takedown.     

The Defendants:

ANTON NAPOLSKY
Age:  33
St. Petersburg, Russia

VALERIIA ERMAKOVA
Age:  27
St. Petersburg, Russia

E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 22-CR-525 (NM)

Attachment(s): 

Download Indictment"

Justice Department investigates Sci-Hub founder on suspicion of working for Russian intelligence; The Washington Post, December 19, 2019

Shane Harris and Devlin Barrett, The Washington Post; Justice Department investigates Sci-Hub founder on suspicion of working for Russian intelligence


"Elbakyan’s work has been the subject of legal and ethical controversy. In 2017, a New York district court awarded $15 million in damages to Elsevier, a leading science publisher, for copyright infringement by Sci-Hub and other sites...

Sci-Hub has made millions of documents available to users around the world, said Andrew Pitts, the managing director of PSI, an independent group based in England that advocates for legitimate access to scholarly content.

Pitts said there are 373 universities in 39 countries “that have suffered an intrusion from Sci-Hub,” which he defined as “using stolen credentials to illegally enter a university’s secure network.” More than 150 of the institutions are in the United States, Pitts said...

“She is the Kim Dotcom of scholarly publications,” said Joseph DeMarco, an attorney in New York who represented Elsevier in its lawsuit against Elbakyan. (Dotcom ran a famous file-sharing site that U.S. authorities said violated copyright law.)"

US hammers Huawei with 23 indictments for alleged trade secret theft, fraud; CNet, January 29, 2019

Abrar Al-Heeti, CNet; US hammers Huawei with 23 indictments for alleged trade secret theft, fraud

"The US Department of Justice on Monday charged Huawei with theft of trade secrets, wire fraud and obstruction of justice.

A 10-count indictment alleges that China's Huawei stole trade secrets from US carrier T-Mobile beginning in 2012. Huawei also allegedly offered bonuses to employees who stole confidential information from companies. In addition, a 13-count indictment charged four defendants, including Huawei and Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, with financial fraud. The indicted defendants also include affiliates Huawei USA and Skycom.

"The charges unsealed today clearly allege that Huawei intentionally conspired to steal the intellectual property of an American company in an attempt to undermine the free and fair global marketplace," said FBI Director Christopher Wray in a statement. "To the detriment of American ingenuity, Huawei continually disregarded the laws of the United States in the hopes of gaining an unfair economic advantage.""

U.S. charges Chinese spies and their recruited hackers in conspiracy to steal trade secrets; The Washington Post, October 30, 2018

Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post; U.S. charges Chinese spies and their recruited hackers in conspiracy to steal trade secrets

[Kip Currier: Just lectured on Trade Secrets in my IP course yesterday. So it was timely to see this recent development after class.

The U.S. and E.U. have both beefed up trade secret protection and prosecution mechanisms in just the past two years: the U.S., with the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, and the E.U., via its E.U. Trade Secrets Directive (EUTSD).]

"The Justice Department on Tuesday unsealed charges against 10 Chinese spies, hackers and others accused of conspiring to steal sensitive commercial airline and other secrets from U.S. and European companies.

The indictment marks the third time since September that the United States has brought charges against Chinese intelligence officers and their recruits for stealing American intellectual property.

“This is just the beginning,” Assistant Attorney General John Demers said. “Together with our federal partners, we will redouble our efforts to safeguard America’s ingenuity and investment.”"

USPTO Fights Fraudulent Trademark Solicitations; Guest blog by Commissioner for Trademarks Mary Boney Denison, Director's Forum: A Blog from USPTO's Leadership, 12/21/16

Guest blog by Commissioner for Trademarks Mary Boney Denison, Director's Forum: A Blog from USPTO's Leadership; USPTO Fights Fraudulent Trademark Solicitations:

"The USPTO has worked hard to fight solicitations from companies fraudulently promising to protect trademarks, and we have taken a number of steps to help raise awareness of these schemes in an attempt to limit the number of victims defrauded. Our agency works closely with federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the United States Postal Inspection Service to combat the problem...

A registered trademark is a valuable asset, and where there’s money, unfortunately, there are bound to be criminal elements lurking. The USPTO continues to provide its ongoing full support to U.S. law enforcement officials working on this issue."

U.S. Justice Department Defends Copyright Anti-Hacking Law as "Unquestionably Constitutional"; Hollywood Reporter, 9/30/16

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; U.S. Justice Department Defends Copyright Anti-Hacking Law as "Unquestionably Constitutional" :

"The U.S. Department of Justice is demanding an end to a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of a law that prevents people from getting around the access restrictions on copyrighted works such as films, television shows and songs.

In July, the Electronic Frontier Foundation led the lawsuit that argues that the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Sec. 1201) inhibits free expression in violation of the First Amendment. The law allows for a triennial review where every three years the Librarian of Congress grants exemptions. For example, in the most recent review, the government made it legal to hack a smart TV to achieve interoperability and also allowed grade school teachers to circumvent access controls on DVDs for educational purposes."

Alleged video pirate Kim Dotcom loses in U.S. appeals court; Politico, 8/12/16

Josh Gerstein, Politico; Alleged video pirate Kim Dotcom loses in U.S. appeals court:

"A panel of the Richmond-based 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled, 2-1, that Dotcom—the swashbuckling founder of the once-highly-popular file-sharing website Megaupload—could not recover his assets because he remains a fugitive from criminal charges of racketeering, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and conspiracy to commit money laundering in a scheme that allegedly caused $500 million in damages to the motion picture industry.

"The refusal to face criminal charges that would determine whether or not the claimants came by the property at issue illegally supports a presumption that the property was, indeed, so obtained," Judge Roger Gregory wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Allyson Duncan."

The DOJ's Copyright Fetish Might Screw Up the Internet's Future; Forbes, 6/9/15

Marvin Ammori, Forbes; The DOJ's Copyright Fetish Might Screw Up the Internet's Future:

"The DOJ asked the Supreme Court not to review a lower court decision that said API interfaces are copyrightable. But that decision threatens new and existing websites and devices that we all rely on. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will ignore the DOJ’s recommendation and eventually reverses the lower court.

“But what’s an API?” you ask. API stands for “application programming interface” and is essentially a way for software developers to interact with information on other sites or on their own sites. When you go to a restaurant’s website and see an embedded map of the location, the restaurant’s developers didn’t create the map from scratch. They merely used an API—perhaps the Google Maps or Mapbox API—to get a map for the location. An API lets one company build on another’s innovation; we don’t all have to create a global mapping company merely to give directions to our restaurants. An API obviously has two parts: the interface and the code behind it. The interface is essentially a shortcut available to others (imagine “1899 M St. NW location” or some other shortcut that probably every map developer already knows) and the code behind it is all the complicated computer lines that create the visual map.

The case at issue involves whether the interfaces—just the shortcuts, not the code behind it—are copyrightable. It arises out of a lawsuit between Oracle and Google concerning the Java programming language. Computer programmers use a variety of “languages” to create websites and apps—they’re called Ruby on Rails, Python, Erlang, C+, Basic, and so on. Some languages are more popular than others, the same way English is more popular than Icelandic or Dutch."

Feds seize 82 domains accused of selling counterfeit goods; ArsTechnica.com, 11/29/10

Matthew Lasar, ArsTechnica.com; Feds seize 82 domains accused of selling counterfeit goods:

"The Department of Justice has obtained seizure orders against a slew of commercial websites accused of selling a wide variety of counterfeit commodities, including DVD box sets, music, software, sports equipment and handbags—82 sites all told."

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/11/feds-seize-82-domains-selling-counterfeit-goods.ars