WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump's recent actions regarding the Library of Congress have ignited a fierce debate over the separation of powers in the U.S. government. The controversy centers not on literature, but on the delicate balance of authority between the executive and legislative branches [1][2].

The dispute began when President Trump abruptly fired top officials at the Library of Congress and attempted to appoint a slate of loyalists as replacements [1][2][3]. This move has been interpreted as an effort by the White House to gain control over an institution that has historically been under legislative purview [1][2].

The Library of Congress, while known for housing the world's largest book collection, also oversees significant responsibilities beyond literature. It manages an office handling copyrighted material of considerable value and houses a research institute that has long operated independently [1][2][4].

Of particular concern are the library's servers, which contain sensitive information about workplace violations on Capitol Hill and financial data for over 30,000 legislative branch employees [1][2][4]. Some speculate that the president's actions may be connected to ongoing debates about regulating big tech companies [1][4].

The controversy has prompted rare pushback from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill against the president [3]. Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY), the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee overseeing the Library of Congress, stated, "This egregious overreach into the legislature by the executive branch is just unwarranted and, we believe, unprecedented" [3].

The situation has left the Library of Congress in an uncertain state. The president's choices for interim library leaders are facing scrutiny, with questions arising about the legality and appropriateness of these appointments [3].

As this power struggle unfolds, it raises significant questions about the boundaries of executive authority and the independence of legislative institutions. The outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power in Washington [1][2][3].