Subcommittee Ranking Member Johnson’s Opening Statement at Hearing on Trump’s Politicization of Patent and Trademark Office

Washington, D.C. (March 25, 2026)-Today, Rep. Hank Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, delivered opening remarksa hearing examining the Trump Administration's effort to politicize the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Below are Ranking Member Johnson's remarks, as prepared for delivery, at today's hearing.

WATCHSubcommittee Ranking Member Johnson's opening statement.

Ranking Member Hank Johnson

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet

Hearing on "Oversight of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office"
March 25, 2026

Thank you, Chairman Issa, and thanks to Director Squires for being here today.

Directors of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office appear before this Subcommittee every two years or so, and I have had the honor of being present for many hearings like this one. You are the sixth Director I have had the opportunity to talk with in a forum like this. Hearings like today's give us the opportunity not just to provide meaningful oversight but also inform the legislative process, so Member of Congress can make the best decisions when considering legislation.

In the many USPTO Director hearings I have had the opportunity to experience, I have witnessed occasional policy missteps from USPTO Directors, and we've discussed administrative failures ranging from modernization growing pains to too-long examination times.

We've certainly had our differences. But never have I had reason to doubt that the Director was acting independently from the president. Until today. There was a time when the USPTO was removed from the politics of the day. Now, it has been drawn squarely into it.

I'm going to take this time to go over just a few of the concerns I've heard over the past year. Keep in mind: this is not in any way an exhaustive list.

Under the Trump administration, the patent office's workplace morale has plummeted, likely because of the administration's layoffs, where were bizarrely characterized as an attempt to save money, even though the USPTO is self-funded. You've also stood by as USPTO employees' collective bargaining rights were undermined by President Trump, destabilizing your already fragile work force. And under your leadership, the USPTO has publicly explored implementing a patent tax that by all accounts would have devastating effects on innovation in the United States.

These are just a few examples of the partisanship inserted into an agency that prides itself on stability. When politics begin to shape a traditionally nonpartisan agency, the result is predictable: You are at the helm of an institution that has lost touch with its mission.

This lost mission is most obvious in the USPTO's cancellation of its planned Southeast Regional Outreach Office in Atlanta, Georgia. The USPTO chose Atlanta after a long process, as proscribed under the law. Instead of going forward, the Trump Administration cancelled this outreach to the Silicon Valley of the South and instead opened it within the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.

American innovation can thrive only when opportunity to participate is accessible to all. By placing the Southeast Office at USPTO headquarters, your agency has limited its reach and concentrated opportunity among those already best positioned to access it. I encourage you, Director, to reconsider this move. Because while it may not violate the letter of the law, it most certainly violates the spirit of it.

As you can see, I strongly disagree with the Trump Administration. I also believe you want to do right by those who rely on the patent system. Your notice of proposed rulemaking to reform the patent trial and appeals board reflects ideas this Subcommittee examined when I was Subcommittee Chair and has similarities to those proposed in my colleague Congresswoman Ross's PREVAIL Act legislation. And while these administrative changes are certainly worth discussing, agency action is not the same as legislation.

When the Director changes, so can agency rules. Patents exist to ensure that research and development rests on firm, predictable ground. This kind of inconsistency between presidential administrations undermines the stability that is essential to a functioning patent system. Ultimately, these are questions for Congress to decide, not the agency; they are questions I look forward to addressing if I become Chairman of this subcommittee next Congress.

A healthy USPTO requires clear rules, consistent leadership free from political influence and a steadfast commitment to protecting those who take the risk to create.

It is incumbent upon us to get these questions right because inventors and job creators are not asking for favors, they are asking for a predictable and stable system they can rely on. When policy shifts with the political whims of an administration, it is American innovation that pays the price.

I yield back the balance of my time.

###