Justice Department Opinion May Shield Trump’s Private Advisers

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion that may shield President Trump’s private advisers from future investigations. This came to light through a 21-page document released on Monday evening.

The opinion suggests the president can extend executive privilege to private advisers who provide direct advice, even if they are not employed by the federal government. For executive privilege to apply, conversations must be confidential and connected to official presidential decision-making.

This move may protect Trump’s outside legal counsel and advisers from congressional inquiries and legal proceedings. Historically, presidents assert executive privilege for discussions with executive branch staff. However, this new interpretation broadens the scope.

Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, head of the Office of Legal Counsel, signed the opinion. He remarked that protecting the government’s decision-making processes is the main goal. The need for presidential confidentiality is seen as equally important for private advisers as it is for government officials. He noted that private advisers might offer unique insights crucial for presidential decisions.

This is not the first time Trump’s Justice Department has deviated from precedent. Earlier opinions have questioned established federal laws, such as those stemming from the Watergate scandal, concerning document preservation by the president.

A prior opinion authored by Gaiser claimed the law requiring the president to submit documents to the National Archives is unconstitutional. This opinion faced legal challenges, resulting in a federal judge ordering compliance with the law.

The recent opinion could also protect Boris Epshteyn, a Trump adviser subpoenaed by the American Bar Association. The ABA seeks communications between Epshteyn and the White House, linked to an alleged intimidation policy against law firms. The DOJ argues Epshteyn’s advice to Trump was privileged and confidential, contesting the subpoena.