2026年8月11日 / 美国东部时间下午12:56 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
根据美国司法部法律顾问办公室发布的一份新意见,特朗普总统的外部顾问——即未受雇于联邦政府的人员——如今可免受未来国会和法律调查的影响。
在周一晚间发布的一份长达21页的意见中,法律顾问办公室告知白宫,总统可以将行政特权——即总统在行政分支内部封存机密沟通的权利——扩展到那些不在白宫工作但为其提供直接建议的顾问。
这份新意见指出,若相关沟通“与总统正式决策相关”、具有保密性,且涉及总统与其直接顾问团队之间的对话,行政特权即可适用于总统的私人顾问。
这份不具备约束力的意见发布之际,距离一场可能导致民主党赢得国会一院或两院席位的有争议的中期选举仅剩数月时间。如果果真如此,随之而来的大量调查可能会扩大受保护、免于未来作证或调查的人员范围。
行政特权通常是总统在与行政分支工作人员(如为白宫工作的律师)对话时会主张的权利,但此次新举措可以保护特朗普的外部法律顾问和其他顾问,使其免于在未来国会调查或法律程序中披露信息。
“归根结底,行政特权的目的是保护政府的决策流程,”这份意见写道。该意见由领导法律顾问办公室的助理司法部长T. 埃利奥特·盖瑟签署。
“总统的保密需求适用于与私人顾问的沟通,正如适用于与政府官员的沟通一样。总统可能会认定某位私人顾问拥有独特的见解或经验,且仅与政府雇员磋商无法获得对某项拟议决策的全面了解,”意见继续写道。
这并非特朗普政府时期司法部出具的第一份打破历史惯例的法律顾问办公室意见。
今年4月,盖瑟曾起草一份意见,称水门事件后出台的联邦法律——要求总统保存特定文件并在任期结束后将其移交给国家档案馆——违宪,特朗普无需遵守该法律。
该意见发布数周后,华盛顿特区的一名联邦法官下令白宫工作人员和特朗普总统的高级顾问遵守该法律,此前一个政府监督组织和美国历史学会提起诉讼,要求宣布该意见无效。
此次意见还可以保护特朗普的外部顾问兼律师鲍里斯·埃普斯泰因,后者近期因去年提起的一起诉讼被美国律师协会传唤。该诉讼涉及白宫所谓的针对大型律师事务所的“恐吓政策”,该政策导致针对四家律所的行政命令以及与其他数家律所达成的协议。
美国律师协会正寻求获取埃普斯泰因与白宫之间的沟通内容,司法部已提出动议撤销该传票,辩称埃普斯泰因“就所涉行政命令向总统提供了受保护的机密建议”。
DOJ legal office says Trump’s outside advisers can be shielded by executive privilege
August 11, 2026 / 12:56 PM EDT / CBS News
President Trump’s outside advisers — individuals who are not employed by the federal government — may now be protected from future congressional and legal investigations, according to a new opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
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.
“At bottom, the purpose of executive privilege is to protect the government’s decisionmaking processes,” the opinion said. It was signed by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, who leads the Office of Legal Counsel.
“The need for presidential confidentiality applies to communications with private advisers just as it does with government officials. A President might determine that a private adviser has unique insight or experience, and that full knowledge about a contemplated decision cannot be obtained through consultation with only government employees,” the opinion continued.
This is not the first OLC opinion by Mr. Trump’s Justice Department that has broken with historical precedent.
In April, Gaiser authored an opinion that said the federal law enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal that requires the president to preserve certain documents and turn them over to the National Archives at the end of his administration is unconstitutional, and that Mr. Trump does not need to comply with it.
Weeks after the opinion was published, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ordered White House staff and President Trump’s top advisers to comply with the law after a government oversight group and the American Historical Association sued to invalidate the opinion.
The opinion could also shield outside Trump adviser and lawyer Boris Epshteyn, who was recently subpoenaed by the American Bar Association in a lawsuit filed last year related to the White House’s alleged “intimidation policy” against major law firms that resulted in executive orders targeting four firms and deals made with several others.
The American Bar Association is seeking communications between Epshteyn and the White House, and the DOJ has moved to quash the subpoena, arguing Epshteyn “provided the President with privileged and confidential advice in connection with the Executive Orders at issue.”
发表回复