2026-08-11T17:16:35.288Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/11/politics/trump-justice-department-presidential-advisers-executive-privilege
美国总统唐纳德·特朗普与甚至不在其政府内工作的顾问之间的沟通,可受行政特权保护,美国司法部周一晚间在一份备忘录中作出此表述。该备忘录发布之际,多起诉讼悬而未决,且民主党可能接管国会。
这份法律备忘录大胆正式确立了一项激进立场,过往历届政府曾对此默许,但从未如此全面地公开阐明。
“若将行政特权仅局限于政府内部沟通,将阻碍总统依赖一系列他认为履行职责所必需的重要信息来源,”司法部法律顾问办公室的这份新意见写道,“这一结果不仅会损害总统根据宪法第二条所享有的职能,最终还会损害公众自身的利益。”
在特朗普政府之前,总统与私人顾问之间的通信保护之争并不常见,因为总统很少依赖行政部门之外的个人进行影响公共政策的私人对话。
但众所周知,特朗普会向白宫之外的一众盟友征求意见,包括国会人士、商界人士和童年好友。
曾在奥巴马政府法律顾问办公室任职的肯塔基大学法学院教授乔纳森·绍布表示,行政特权是否保护总统与行政部门外顾问的沟通这一问题,从未在法庭上得到过直接检验。他还指出,尽管法律顾问办公室的备忘录不具备法院判决的效力,但在没有法院命令与之相悖的情况下,它们确实决定了行政部门对法律的解读方式。
“我认为这与过往立场并不矛盾,”绍布告诉美国有线电视新闻网,“但它从未被公开阐明过,因为法律顾问办公室清楚,这在法律顾问办公室体系之外有多极端。”
2018年民主党接管众议院后,他们对首届特朗普政府的调查引发了前所未有的法律争议,涉及议员可获取哪些有关特朗普个人行为和政府行为的信息。如果民主党在11月的选举后重新获得传票权,他们可能会面临更加顽固的行政部门——后者将因最高法院保守派6比3的多数席位而有恃无恐,该法院此前已表达了对总统权力和豁免权的宽泛解读。
但在此之前,备忘录中提出的论点可能与美国律师协会正在进行的一起诉讼相关,该诉讼挑战总统对反对其议程的律师事务所的打压行动。
https://www.cnn.com/
托德·布兰奇宣誓就任司法部长
3:26 • 消息来源:CNN
司法部已提出行政特权主张,试图阻止向鲍里斯·埃普斯泰因发出的作证和提供文件的传票。埃普斯泰因并未在政府中任职,但曾在白宫与寻求规避针对其业务的行政命令的律师事务所达成协议的过程中发挥了重要作用。
司法部将埃普斯泰因描述为特朗普的私人律师,但在法庭文件中也表示,他“可能与总统或其亲密顾问进行过或未进行过的对话”将受特权保护。
政府还辩称,即使“只是透露总统咨询过谁的身份,或是此类咨询的内容,都可能让未来的 deliberations 参与者感到寒心,破坏总统获取最佳建议的途径,进而损害总统决策的质量,以及总统在不受干扰的情况下履行职责的能力”。
这份新的法律顾问办公室意见未说明司法部为何在此时发布正式备忘录,司法部也未回应美国有线电视新闻网有关该时间点是否与埃普斯泰因传票诉讼有关的置评请求。
周一的备忘录指出了司法部过往主张行政特权可延伸至行政部门外总统顾问的案例,其中提及2007年的一份法律顾问办公室备忘录,该备忘录称行政特权适用于国会与白宫之间就乔治·W·布什总统解雇多名美国检察官一事进行的沟通。
在为这一立场背书时,最新的司法部备忘录写道:“不受限制地收集信息的能力,对总统的行政职能至关重要。”备忘录称,历史上总统曾借助非政府顾问的专业知识,并援引安德鲁·杰克逊和富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福政府时期的例子作为佐证。
“总统可能会认定某位私人顾问拥有独特的见解或经验,仅与政府雇员磋商无法充分了解拟作出的决策,”法律顾问办公室写道,“事实上,历史上不乏总统出于这些原因将私人顾问作为值得信赖的密友的例子。”
法律顾问办公室辩称,如果不将特权延伸至此类沟通,总统可能无法从这些顾问那里获得坦诚的建议。
“这类个人可能会因为害怕公开披露或对其个人事业产生潜在影响,而不愿就有争议或不受欢迎的政策提供建议,”该意见写道,“总统必须能够保护与这些顾问之间的通信机密性,以确保总统决策达到最高水准,依靠诚实的建议和全面的信息作出判断。”
法律顾问办公室的备忘录表示,其仅针对总统与私人顾问之间涉及白宫公务的沟通发表意见。
Trump executive privilege memo could hamper Democrats if they win Congress
2026-08-11T17:16:35.288Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/11/politics/trump-justice-department-presidential-advisers-executive-privilege
Communications that President Donald Trump has with advisers who don’t even work for his administration can be protected by executive privilege, the Justice Department said in a memo Monday evening that comes amid lawsuits and a possible Democratic takeover of Congress.
The legal memo boldly formalizes an aggressive stance the past administrations had nodded to but never publicly laid out so comprehensively.
“Restricting executive privilege to purely intragovernmental communications would foreclose the President from relying on an array of important sources that he may find necessary to the effective discharge of his responsibilities of office,” the new opinion from the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel said. “Such an outcome not only would impair the President’s Article II functions, but ultimately would harm the public itself.”
Before Trump, fights over protections for presidential communications with private advisers were uncommon because presidents were rarely depending on individuals outside the executive branch for private conversations that shaped public policy.
But Trump has been known to seek input from a constellation of allies outside the White House, including from Congress, the business world and childhood friends.
The question of whether privilege protects a president’s communications with advisers outside of the executive branch has never been tested directly in court, according to Jonathan Shaub, a University of Kentucky School of Law professor who served in the Obama administration’s OLC. And while OLC memos do not have the weight of a court’s opinion, absent a court order contradicting them, they do control how the executive branch views the law.
“I would say it’s not inconsistent with past positions,” Shaub told CNN. “But it’s never been stated publicly, because the office understands how extreme this is outside the world of OLC.”
When Democrats took over the House in 2018, their investigations of the first Trump administration prompted novel legal disputes over what information lawmakers could obtain about both his personal conduct and the conduct of the government. If congressional Democrats regain subpoena power after the Novembes elections, they could face an even more recalcitrant executive branch, emboldened by a 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court that has expressed a broad view of presidential powers and immunity.
But before that, the arguments laid out in the memo could be relevant in an ongoing legal case brought by the American Bar Association challenging the president’s crackdown on law firms that have opposed his agenda.
https://www.cnn.com/
Todd Blanche sworn in as attorney general
3:26 • Source: CNN
The DOJ has teed up executive privilege arguments in an effort to block subpoenas for testimony and documents issued to Boris Epshteyn, who does not work in the administration but was instrumental in the deals the White House reached with law firms seeking to avoid executive orders that targeted their operations.
DOJ has described Epshteyn as Trump’s personal attorney, but has also said in court filings that the conversations he “may or may not have had with the President, or his close advisers,” would be privileged.
The administration has also argued that even “revealing the identity of whom the President consulted, or the content of any such consultations, could chill participation in future deliberations, undermining the President’s access to the best advice, therefore undermining the quality of presidential decision-making and ability to carry out the duties of the presidency without interference.”
The new OLC opinion provides no context for why the Justice Department is issuing the formal memo now, and the Justice Department did not respond to a CNN inquiry about the timing and whether it has a connection to the Epshteyn subpoena litigation.
Monday’s memo points to past instances where the Justice Department has asserted that privilege can extend to presidential advisers outside the executive branch, referencing a 2007 OLC memo that said executive privilege applied to the communications between Congress and the White House regarding President George W. Bush’s firing of several US attorneys.
In backing the stance, the latest DOJ memo stated, “The unrestrained ability to gather information is essential to the President’s executive function.” It said that historically, president have drawn on the expertise of non-government advisers, citing to examples in the Andrew Jackson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt administrations.
“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 OLC said. “Indeed, history is replete with examples of Presidents using private advisers as trusted confidants for these reasons.”
The OLC argued that, if privilege was not extended to those communications, a president might not be able to get candid advice from those counselors.
“Such individuals may be reluctant to provide advice on controversial or unpopular policies based on a fear of public disclosure or potential ramifications for their personal endeavors,” the opinion said. “The President must be able to protect the confidentiality of his communications with these advisers if he is to ensure that presidential decisionmaking is of the highest caliber, informed by honest advice and full knowledge.”
The OLC memo said that it was only weighing in on conversations a president has with private advisers that relate to his official duties in the White House.
发表回复