A newly disclosed Justice Department legal opinion could hand President Donald Trump a powerful tool for shielding his private conversations from congressional scrutiny, arriving just months before midterm elections that could reshape the balance of power in Washington. A memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel made public on Monday contends that the president’s power to withhold information may extend to his discussions with individuals described as “private advisers” — people who hold no formal position in the federal government at all.
The document was signed by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Glaser, 36, whose interpretation would give Trump a fresh legal argument for resisting subpoenas that seek records involving outside consultants, donors and even ordinary citizens. According to the memo, privilege applies when such discussions relate to official presidential decision-making, reflect input from the president or his aides, and are kept confidential.
The reasoning does not stop there. The opinion states that these private advisers could themselves invoke the same protection to keep their conversations with members of the public out of view — a chain of confidentiality that critics say could wall off enormous swaths of communication from oversight.
How Far the Privilege Reaches
The memo defines its key phrase expansively. According to the document, the president may shield discussions with outside consultants provided those exchanges concern official duties, involve or mirror input from the chief executive or his close aides, and remain private. It goes on to clarify that “private advisers” is meant to include essentially anyone the president consults outside the executive branch — from state officials to employees of other federal branches to members of the public.
In practical terms, that framing could complicate any effort to compel testimony or records from individuals with no government job but close ties to the president’s political and business orbit. And the timing is far from incidental. Polls suggest Democrats have an increasingly likely chance of retaking the House in November, a shift that would give the party subpoena power and control of the committees that conduct investigations.
Should that happen, the political stakes rise sharply. Some Democrats have suggested pursuing impeachment charges against Trump related to the Iran military strikes undertaken without prior approval from lawmakers. The party has already mounted two impeachment attempts during Trump’s second term, both of which collapsed under Republican control of Congress. A Democratic majority would rewrite that math.
Democrats Weigh Their Next Move
Rather than rushing toward impeachment, House Democrats are reportedly preparing a wide-ranging investigation into companies and financial firms tied to Trump’s network, on the theory that scrutinizing his outside relationships could yield more evidence than a direct confrontation with a White House expected to stonewall. Apple, Alphabet, Palantir, Blackstone, BlackRock and firms controlled by Elon Musk, including Tesla, have emerged as potential targets owing to their federal contracts, interactions with regulators, or other ties to the White House, sources close to the planning say.
A senior Democratic aide said the approach is meant to be methodical and focused on gathering evidence rather than forcing an impeachment vote likely to fail. California Rep. Robert Garcia, a Democrat, vowed his party would target what he described as questionable Pentagon contracts, cryptocurrency profits and backroom arrangements benefiting Trump allies if Democrats win in November.
Glaser’s Record and the Records Fight
The memo is not Glaser’s first move to expand presidential secrecy. On April 7, 2026, the Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion asserting that Trump is not obligated to turn over his presidential records to the National Archives and Records Administration at the end of his term. That opinion went so far as to argue that a Supreme Court precedent from the Nixon era was wrongly decided, contending it violated separation-of-powers principles.
Glaser’s background has drawn attention from his critics. In 2020, he worked as legal counsel for Trump’s presidential campaign and handled election litigation after that year’s contest, producing a speech that rejected the results. Former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack that Glaser was regarded as a constitutional law expert and had raised, in passing, the theory that then-Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to recognize certain states’ electors. Before joining the administration, Glaser clerked for federal judges Edith Jones and Neomi Rao and for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
The push to keep communications private echoes earlier clashes over how the administration handles its records. On March 27, 2025, a judge ordered officials to preserve all Signal messages exchanged between March 11 and March 15, responding to a watchdog group’s suit alleging violations of federal records law by senior figures including Director of Central Intelligence John Ratcliffe, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard. That dispute grew out of national security adviser Michael Waltz inadvertently adding a journalist to a group chat about striking Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Legal observers note the opinion carries no binding force on courts, but its practical effect could be immediate — giving the administration a ready rationale to slow the release of documents and blunt future oversight, whoever controls the House come January.