The timing of this DoJ opinion is curious.
There's a case that has become active in recent days ...
The ABA Wants The White House's Receipts On The Biglaw Executive Orders (July 9, 2026)
abovethelaw.com
... and ...
Trump demands 'executive privilege' for private 'psychiatrist' and fixer (August 10, 2026)
www.alternet.org
... President Donald Trump is trying to extend the concept of executive privilege, which solely protects the president and official appointees, to his so-called "kitchen cabinet" " that is, outside advisers who simply provide him with guidance.
"As court fight brews over demands for testimony and records from outside Trump advisers like Boris Epshteyn, DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel issues opinion arguing executive privilege extends to Kitchen Cabinet," Politico's Josh Gerstein argued on Monday. ...
In June Trump joked that Epshteyn, a lawyer and political strategist who has long been part of his inner circle, as his "psychiatrist." He is also regarded as a central figure in formulating the president's legal strategies, for instance by playing a crucial role as a go-between interacting with law firms that Trump pressured into providing free pro bono work in return for not facing retaliation from the White House. At the same time, Epshteyn has also been accused of personally profiting from his close relationship with the president, even being investigated by some of Trump's other attorneys for that exact reason.
Because Epshteyn is close to Trump, the president is apparently concerned that efforts to compel the lawyer to testify about potential criminal conduct could hurt him.
This sweeping expansion of executive privilege marks a significant departure from historic legal norms, as courts have traditionally restricted this confidentiality shield to formal government employees to maintain public accountability. Critics argue that extending these protections to private citizens creates a dangerous loophole, allowing outside influencers to shape national policy in total secrecy. ...
"The current debate over a possible Russian attack on NATO reflects the alliance's failure to maintain credible deterrence against its far weaker adversary amid an unprecedented rise in tensions over the invasion of Ukraine.
On paper, at least, this makes little sense. After all, the power of the NATO alliance completely dwarfs Russia's much smaller military and economic potential.
In practice, however, it is increasingly apparent that Putin has managed to seize the initiative in this unequal confrontation by exploiting the West's crippling fear of escalation."
;;
Correction: should be, 'exploiting the West's mentally and morally crippled Leader in the WH.'