DOJ: Trump's Outside Advisers Shielded by Exec Privilege

More from the article ...

... In a 21-page opinion published Monday evening, the Office of Legal Counsel told the White House that the president can move to extend executive privilege, the right of the president to contain confidential communications within the executive branch, to advisers who do not work for the White House, but who provide him with direct advice.

The new opinion says that executive privilege can apply to private advisers of the president if the communications "relate to official presidential decisionmaking," are confidential, and involve conversations between the president and his direct team of advisers.

The opinion, which is not binding, comes months before a contentious midterm election that could result in Democrats winning one or both houses in Congress. If that were to happen, a barrage of investigations could follow and may expand the number of individuals potentially protected from future testimony or investigation.

Executive privilege is often asserted by the president in conversations with executive branch staff, like lawyers who work for the White House, but the new step could protect Mr. Trump's outside legal counsel and other advisers from divulging information in future congressional investigations or legal proceedings. ...

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

... In a Tuesday filing in American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, the ABA asked U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to force the White House to hand over internal communications, including those involving Bannon and Boris Epshteyn, Trump's personal senior counsel. According to reporting, Epshteyn connected two firms that struck deals with the administration, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, with the Commerce Department on matters related to U.S. trade negotiations. ...

... 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. ...

@#1 ... the new step could protect Mr. Trump's outside legal counsel and other advisers from divulging information in future congressional investigations or legal proceedings. ...

Is Pres Trump preparing for a Congress that is not fully controlled by Republicans?