Raskin Presses Squires on Motives for Board of Peace Trademark Filings

On Tuesday, May 5, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires pressing him to answer questions about the Office’s role in filing a trademark application on behalf of the Trump Administration for President Trump’s “Board of Peace.”

The Board of Peace was formally established in January 2026 and includes 28 founding member countries. According to a White House statement, the Board represents “another pivotal step forward in realizing President Trump’s vision of transforming Gaza from a region plagued by conflict and despair into one defined by opportunity, hope, and vitality.”

At the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet oversight hearing of the USPTO in March, Raskin raised questions throughout the hearing about the Board of Peace applications, and Squires responded that he acted pursuant to his authority under both 35 U.S.C. § 2 and 35 U.S.C. § 3 in advising the President on national IP policy issues and acting as a custodian for trademark rights to prevent fraud. Squires also noted that the applications were intent-to-use filings that would expire if no bona fide intent to use the mark arose.

In his opening remarks to the hearing, Rep. Raskin said the USPTO’s act in filing those trademark applications “the first step in giving Trump and his subordinates a monopoly in our country on use of the word ‘peace,’” further raising charges under the Emoluments Clause due to Board of Peace investments from foreign governments and private entities.

Dissatisfied with Squires’ explanation at the hearing, Raskin’s May 5 letter poses 18 detailed questions to Squires, with a request for response by May 19. Raskin claimed that Squires has violated “essential tenets of the Lanham Act and standard USPTO operating procedures” by personally registering the trademarks and pointedly inquired as to Squires’ motives. The letter asked:

“Are you a willing accomplice to President Trump’s efforts to cover up that his ‘Board of Peace’ is an attempt to create a secretive private slush fund with billions of U.S. taxpayer and foreign government dollars, or are you an unwitting enabler to this scheme being forced to do the President’s bidding outside your lawful duties and powers?”

Raskin noted that questions over the Board of Peace filings were bipartisan, indicating that he had heard from concerned Republicans as well as Democrats.

Squires told Raskin at the March hearing that the USPTO is acting on a “custodial” basis for the administration with respect to the trademark registrations, but Raskin questioned this arrangement. The letter asked: “Where in the trademark registration is one entity or one person authorized to register a trademark acting as ‘custodian’ for another? Has this ever happened before? Has any USPTO Director ever registered a trademark for the President or another person before?”

Trademark Application Nos. 76720938 and 76720939 are pending and the current owner is listed as the USPTO. Squires told Raskin that ownership would be “transferred to the entity once it’s formed” and that he was acting in his capacity as advisor to the president on national and international IP policy in response to cyber squatters registering the domain name for Board of Peace eight minutes into Trump’s speech announcing it.