I've mostly been keeping out of political questions, in part because I have been deliberately taking things easy (at least to the extent possible) after a rather brutally exhausting 2024, in part because it has become very difficult to get good information about some things (a lot of news sites seem to have given up on even the appearance of objective investigation), and in part because it's quite clear that, even more than usual, people are completely unwilling to treat arguments seriously, which is my only conceivable reason for talking about the matter here. There are also other cases, like the issue of the Trump administration's civil rights enforcement with respect to Ivy League universities, in which I have nothing to say that anyone wants to hear, and would in any case not be able to remain temperate in giving all sides -- and it would be all sides, including some who certainly think themselves righteous -- an earful. I've never been one to back down from a fight, but I have no moral obligation whatsoever to be a minority of one fighting against everyone else, much less an 'everyone else' who are not bothering to listen, and I have much more constructive things to do.
Nonetheless, there are political questions that have clear answers, and yet are associated with incorrect arguments that pass my screen so often and in so irritatingly that I just might as well point out the clear answer here rather than just biting my tongue. And one topic that has been irritating me in this way recently is the Librarian of Congress, a topic in which I already have a minor interest. President Trump recently fired the Librarian of Congress. Can the President fire the Librarian of Congress? The answer as a general matter is yes, undeniably. The Library of Congress as an institution serves a number of important functions for Congress, as the name suggests; but the Library of Congress is also an executive branch agency -- it explicitly includes the United States Copyright Office, which performs the executive function of administering copyright law, and the Librarian of Congress has explicitly been recognized by courts as a Head of Department in the executive branch. The Librarian of Congress is also by statute appointed by the President, and therefore, as the statute would usually be interpreted, and as Presidential appointments have generally been interpreted by the courts, the President can remove the appointment and therefore remove the Librarian from office.
Of course, doing so without prior courtesies in consulting Congress is asking for pushback; because the Library of Congress serves some important functions for Congress itself, sudden replacement of the Librarian of Congress has the potential to disrupt Congressional business in various minor ways, and it's not surprising that you would find members of Congress angered by it. But it's not illegal, and almost the only thing Congress can do about it would be to change the law. Presumably they would have to do it by legally removing the United States Copyright Office from the Library of Congress and making all the staff, including the Librarian of Congress, official Congressional staff; although conceivably they might try the simpler and much riskier path of just trying to impose restrictions on removal, which may or may not, and probably not, survive challenge in court because, again, the Librarian of Congress, despite serving Congress in various ways, is clearly and explicitly an executive office under current law. I suppose they could impeach the President for it despite the fact that it is legal -- Congress can impeach and convict anyone for anything for any reason and there is no recourse; this is always a potential option, but good luck with it in practice.
