{"id":11178,"date":"2025-07-10T21:17:12","date_gmt":"2025-07-10T21:17:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/trumps-u-turn-on-white-house-secrecy-could-reshape-how-future-presidents-get-advice\/"},"modified":"2025-07-10T21:17:12","modified_gmt":"2025-07-10T21:17:12","slug":"trumps-u-turn-on-white-house-secrecy-could-reshape-how-future-presidents-get-advice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/trumps-u-turn-on-white-house-secrecy-could-reshape-how-future-presidents-get-advice\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s U-turn on White House secrecy could reshape how future presidents get advice"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

President Donald Trump is trying to force Joe Biden\u2019s former White House aides to divulge confidential discussions to congressional investigators \u2014 using the same tactics he once warned would \u201cdo grave damage<\/a>\u201d to the presidency and the republic.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s White House lawyers, in a series of recent letters<\/a> to Biden aides, said the aides should provide \u201cunrestricted testimony\u201d to a House GOP-led investigation into Biden\u2019s health and whether advisers covered up his frailty while in office.<\/p>\n

To facilitate that testimony, Trump has agreed to \u201cwaive\u201d any claims of executive privilege, the legal shield that presidents typically use to maintain the secrecy of candid conversations between a president and close confidants. That protection doesn\u2019t expire when a president leaves office, but the incumbent president has the power to undo it.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s decision could leave Biden\u2019s aides vulnerable to GOP lawmakers\u2019 demands that they disclose some of the most sensitive details of their conversations with Biden \u2014 or risk being held in contempt of Congress and facing criminal charges.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a dynamic Trump once decried<\/a> when the roles were reversed: Biden, as president, authorized former White House aides from Trump\u2019s first term to reveal confidential information to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the monthslong campaign by Trump to subvert the 2020 election results. Now, in his second term, Trump\u2019s White House hinted at that history as a justification for compelling Biden\u2019s aides to testify.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe President reached this view consistent with the practice established under the Biden administration,\u201d read a letter from White House deputy counsel Gary Lawkowski to former Biden staff secretary Neera Tanden, who testified as part of the investigation last month.<\/p>\n

Biden\u2019s post-presidential office declined to comment on the unfolding investigation. The Trump White House declined to comment on the record, but a senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration views Trump\u2019s privilege waiver as less \u201cdangerous\u201d than Biden\u2019s.<\/p>\n

The probe into Biden\u2019s health is being led by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who dogged Biden for his final two years in office with an investigation into his family\u2019s business dealings. Comer is now demanding testimony from many of Biden\u2019s top White House advisers to determine whether Biden\u2019s health declined while in office and whether anyone concealed any purported decline from the public. The investigation includes a review of whether aides ever acted on Biden\u2019s behalf without his awareness.<\/p>\n

Comer has said he views the handling of Biden\u2019s health as a \u201cconspiracy\u201d and a \u201ccover-up.\u201d Democrats say the investigation is a politically motivated stunt to settle scores with Trump\u2019s vanquished adversary. And they say the issue has diminished salience now that Biden has retreated from public life.<\/p>\n

Even though Trump has waived executive privilege for the Comer probe, there are other avenues for aides to sidestep testimony. Kevin O\u2019Connor, Biden\u2019s physician while in office, cited doctor-patient confidentiality, but also his Fifth Amendment right<\/a> against self-incrimination Wednesday in declining to answer the committee\u2019s questions \u2014 a path well-worn by witnesses called to testify by Jan. 6 investigators. It\u2019s unclear whether others called in the Biden probe will adopt O\u2019Connor\u2019s strategy.<\/p>\n

Despite the procedural parallels, Biden\u2019s choice to lift secrecy protections occurred under very different circumstances than Trump\u2019s. Biden waived the privilege in order to assist the investigation of an unprecedented assault on the underpinnings of democracy. In contrast, Trump has waived the privilege in hopes of bolstering a roving exploration of Biden\u2019s mental health based on claims, largely from Republicans, that Biden was cognitively incapable of making decisions as president.<\/p>\n

Biden aides have dismissed those claims as unfounded. Still, numerous reports about Biden\u2019s diminished capacity, and an entire book on the subject by two prominent journalists<\/a>, have fueled the GOP push.<\/p>\n

A dangerous precedent<\/h4>\n

Some constitutional experts see Trump\u2019s privilege waiver as a troubling sign of a vicious cycle in which presidents of one party will routinely seek to disclose confidential conversations of prior administrations of the opposite party. Indeed, Trump himself warned of that cycle of vengeance when he opposed Biden\u2019s waiver of executive privilege during the Jan. 6 probe.<\/p>\n

If the trend continues, experts say it could lead presidential advisers to shy away from blunt or politically sensitive advice they fear could be disclosed by a political adversary.<\/p>\n

\u201cPresidential advisers now avoid as much as possible creating public records of their advice to presidents,\u201d said Mark Rozell, an expert on executive privilege at George Mason University. \u201cWaiving executive privilege will potentially make aides avoid being completely candid in their internal deliberations due to fear of disclosure and future investigations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Others are more circumspect, saying federal employees are already well-schooled in the principle that anything they say behind closed doors could wind up public \u2014 in investigations, in court or in leaks from their colleagues.<\/p>\n

But Trump\u2019s willingness to waive the privilege is dangerous for a different reason, according to Rebecca Ingber, a constitutional law scholar at Yeshiva University\u2019s Cardozo Law School. His U-turn on the issue \u2014 despite the concerns he previously expressed about the importance of the privilege \u2014 is further evidence of his willingness to \u201csimply destroy the norms that typically used to govern these inter-branch disputes,\u201d Ingber said.<\/p>\n

Peter Shane, a constitutional law expert at New York University, said “if Trump’s thirst for revenge overcomes his protectiveness of the presidency as an institution, I do think that is up to him.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs for whether Trump has any political price to pay for contradicting himself,\u201d Shane continued, \u201cI can only say, he doesn’t seem to have paid any price so far for his inconsistencies.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s dire warning<\/h4>\n

Executive privilege isn\u2019t written in law or the Constitution, but it has roots stretching back to George Washington and was recognized by the Supreme Court during the Watergate scandal as an important \u2014 but limited \u2014 protection for the presidency. The idea behind the privilege is that secrecy is necessary for the president to receive candid advice to deal with the most sensitive and controversial subjects facing the nation.<\/p>\n

Historically, even when the White House has changed parties, presidents respected the wishes of their predecessors to maintain the secrecy of records and communications \u2014 in part because they knew they would become former presidents one day and wished to preserve both their own records and the strength of the presidency itself.<\/p>\n

That calculus changed after Trump orchestrated a nationwide push to overturn the results of the 2020 election, leading a campaign to undermine the certified results and assembling a rally that later morphed into a violent riot on Jan. 6, 2021. The Democrat-led congressional committee established to investigate the attack (after Republicans killed a proposed bipartisan commission) quickly pursued Trump\u2019s records and interviews with his closest aides.<\/p>\n

The unprecedented circumstances that caused the Jan. 6 attack are why Biden\u2019s directive in late 2021 to waive executive privilege was upheld by the courts. Biden repeatedly waived<\/a> the privilege over documents and testimony of Trump\u2019s close advisers, saying the national urgency of understanding the root causes of the attack outweighed the need for executive branch secrecy.<\/p>\n

Trump argued at the time that permitting congressional investigators to pierce the secrecy of his communications \u2014 even over a subject as weighty as Jan. 6 \u2014 would lead to a cycle of retribution by future presidents. He tried to get the courts to step in and keep his White House records concealed from investigators.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is na\u00efve to assume that the fallout will be limited to President Trump or the events of January 6, 2021,\u201d Trump\u2019s attorneys argued<\/a> at the Supreme Court. \u201cIn these hyperpartisan times, Congress will increasingly and inevitably use this new weapon to perpetually harass its political rival.\u201d<\/p>\n

He warned that \u201cif the privilege that covered one administration were to evaporate immediately upon the transition to the next, the privilege would be rendered all but worthless.\u201d It would, his lawyers said, \u201cturn executive privilege into a political weapon to be used against political enemies.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the courts concluded that the Jan. 6 attack was so momentous, and Congress\u2019 need for Trump\u2019s records so great, that executive privilege would have yielded even if Trump were the sitting president at the time.<\/p>\n

Still, the Jan. 6 committee did not get all the testimony it wanted from Trump\u2019s advisers. Stephen Miller refused to discuss<\/a> \u201cany conversations that he had with President Trump,\u201d saying Trump had not waived executive privilege to permit him to testify. David Warrington, who at the time was an attorney representing Trump\u2019s former White House personnel director, emphasized that Biden\u2019s waiver of privilege was \u201cpretty specific\u201d and \u201cnot a broad waiver.\u201d Miller is now Trump\u2019s deputy chief of staff, and Warrington is Trump\u2019s White House counsel.<\/p>\n

Even witnesses willing to cooperate with the committee \u2014 like Mike Pence\u2019s aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob, as well as Trump\u2019s former White House counsel Pat Cipollone \u2014 refused to discuss direct conversations with Trump they said could potentially be covered by claims of executive privilege.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have an instruction from President Trump not to respond to questions that may implicate the privilege,\u201d Short\u2019s attorney Emmet Floodtold the Jan. 6 panel<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s effort, as a former president, to assert privilege over his White House records and testimony by former aides set up an unprecedented clash \u2014 no sitting president had ever diverged from the privilege claims of his predecessors. It raised unresolved questions about the degree to which former presidents retain any ability to assert privilege at all. Although the Nixon-era Supreme Court said they do, the justices also emphasized that only the incumbent president is charged with the stewardship of the executive branch and would virtually always prevail in a dispute with his predecessor.<\/p>\n

Biden\u2019s hands-off approach<\/h4>\n

Trump\u2019s effort to stymie the Jan. 6 panel\u2019s probe stands in contrast to Biden, who allies say has made no effort, so far, to instruct witnesses on how to approach the investigation into his cognitive health.<\/p>\n

The Oversight Committee has not specifically articulated the scope of its investigation, but Comer said in a subpoena letter to O\u2019Connor, Biden\u2019s White House physician, that the panel is exploring legislation<\/a> related to \u201coversight of presidents\u2019 fitness to serve.\u201d Republicans are also looking into making potential changes to the 25th Amendment, which gives Congress a role in determining whether a president is no longer fit to hold office \u2014 something House Democrats proposed during their probe of Trump\u2019s actions preceding the Jan. 6 attack.<\/p>\n

Committee Republicans have only just begun their inquiry in earnest. Comer has demanded participation from a wide range of Biden advisers \u2014 including two chiefs of staff, Ron Klain and Jeff Zients.<\/p>\n

So far, just one witness has provided testimony: Tanden, the former staff secretary and domestic policy adviser, who fielded questions from the committee behind closed doors for hours.<\/p>\n

Tanden has publicly indicated she answered all the committee\u2019s questions, and a person familiar with the interview said the issue of executive privilege never came up, beyond a brief mention of Trump\u2019s waiver at the outset.<\/p>\n

Still, there are signs the issue may rise again.<\/p>\n

Anthony Bernal, a former White House aide and adviser to first lady Jill Biden, withdrew from a scheduled interview after the Trump White House waived his executive privilege, leading to a subpoena from Comer that remains active.<\/p>\n

On Tuesday, Trump\u2019s White House issued a letter to O\u2019Connor saying that the \u201cunique and extraordinary nature\u201d of the investigation into Biden\u2019s health was reason to waive executive privilege. The letter further noted that the White House had decided that, after \u201cbalancing the Legislative and Executive Branch interests,\u201d Congress should be able to hear O\u2019Connor\u2019s testimony \u201cirrespective of potential executive privilege.\u201d<\/p>\n

Biden has so far not instructed aides to resist the probe on executive privilege grounds. In fact, he\u2019s said little at all on the subject, instead leaving it to each witness to determine their own strategy. The former president has maintained<\/a> he made the decisions during his presidency.<\/p>\n

A person familiar with the Biden team\u2019s thinking, granted anonymity to reveal confidential discussions, said there\u2019s a key distinction between Biden\u2019s privilege waiver for the Jan. 6 probe and Trump\u2019s privilege waiver now. Despite Trump\u2019s hostility toward the Jan. 6 investigation, the Biden White House engaged regularly with Trump and his team to discuss the contours of the waivers, sometimes narrowing the categories of information they made available to the committee, the person said.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s White House, on the other hand, is not engaging with the former president, the person said. Nor is the House Oversight Committee.<\/p>\n

Asked about the role of executive privilege in the investigation, a committee spokesperson simply pointed to Trump\u2019s waiver and said the issue isn\u2019t being factored into its handling of topics for upcoming witnesses.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

President Donald Trump is trying to force Joe Biden\u2019s former White House aides to divulge confidential discussions to congressional investigators \u2014 using the same tactics he once warned would \u201cdo grave damage\u201d to the presidency and the republic. Trump\u2019s White House lawyers, in a series of recent letters to Biden aides, said the aides should […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-congress"],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bluelightnews.com\/category\/politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}