Trump’s Privilege Playbook: Shielding Advisers from Accountability

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued a 21-page opinion that claims executive privilege can be extended to private advisers who provide direct advice to the president, as long as their communications relate to official presidential decisionmaking and are confidential. The opinion, signed by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, has sparked concerns about the president’s increasing reliance on executive privilege to shield his outside advisers from congressional and legal investigations.

The Trump administration’s history of pushing the boundaries of executive power is well-documented. In April, the Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion arguing that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional. This decision was met with a swift rebuke from a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who ordered White House staff and top advisers to comply with the law.

The new opinion raises questions about the scope of executive privilege and its potential impact on accountability. By extending this protection to outside advisers, Trump’s team is creating a buffer zone around the president that makes it more difficult for Congress or investigators to obtain information about his dealings. This could have far-reaching implications, particularly if Democrats win control of one or both houses in Congress after the midterm elections.

One key concern is that this opinion will be used to shield individuals like Boris Epshteyn, who has been subpoenaed by the American Bar Association in a lawsuit related to the White House’s alleged “intimidation policy” against major law firms. The Justice Department has already moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that Epshteyn provided privileged and confidential advice to the president on executive orders targeting four firms.

The role of outside advisers in the Trump administration is also under scrutiny. Are they truly independent actors, or are they simply extensions of the White House’s inner circle? The fact that the Office of Legal Counsel is willing to extend executive privilege to these individuals suggests that the line between government and private interests may be blurring further than ever before.

This opinion sets a precedent for future presidents to shield their outside advisers from accountability, potentially undermining the oversight role of Congress and the judiciary. This is particularly concerning in an era where executive power seems to be expanding at the expense of checks and balances.

The Trump administration’s use of executive privilege is a calculated move to shield its actions from scrutiny. However, by attempting to expand the scope of this protection, they may ultimately create more problems than they solve. The debate over executive power and accountability will continue to rage on, but one thing is clear – the stakes have never been higher.

Congress and the judiciary must push back against these efforts to erode transparency and accountability. As the Trump administration continues to test the boundaries of executive power, it’s essential that we remain vigilant in our pursuit of truth and oversight. The fate of democracy depends on it.