DOJ legal office says President's outside advisers may be shielded by executive privilege
DOJ

DOJ legal office says President's outside advisers may be shielded by executive privilege

Aug 13, 2026Updated 7:12am ET

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo saying a president can claim executive privilege to keep confidential advice from private outside advisers secret when it relates to official presidential decision-making.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo saying a president can claim executive privilege to keep confidential advice from private outside advisers secret when it relates to official presidential decision-making.

Corroboration

LowMedHigh
CNNAxiosCBS NewsDCThe IndependentThe Hill

Confirmed by 8+ sources.

What This is

  • The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel released a 21-page, nonbinding opinion expanding how executive privilege can apply to presidential communications.
  • The opinion says a president may assert executive privilege over confidential communications with private advisers who are outside the executive branch.
  • DOJ says the protection can apply when the advice is directly tied to official presidential decision-making and the president’s constitutional duties.
  • The memo is being cited in legal fights over subpoenas involving Trump ally Boris Epshteyn, who has served as a private outside adviser.
  • DOJ says the privilege claim is not unlimited and is framed as applying only to certain confidential discussions about presidential work.
  • DOJ’s position could make it harder for Congress and courts to get testimony or records from outside advisers in investigations.

Why This Matters

  • It could widen the range of people who can refuse to share information with Congress, weakening lawmakers’ ability to investigate a president’s actions.
  • It may encourage more sensitive work to move to private advisers and informal channels, which are often harder for the public to see and for investigators to track.
  • If courts accept this approach, it could reshape future fights over subpoenas and set a stronger norm of secrecy around presidential decision-making.
  • The dispute reflects a basic tradeoff between protecting candid advice to presidents and ensuring democratic accountability.

Who else would want to know this?