The Trump administration’s rules for how White House staff can interact with the Justice Department are a departure from Biden-era guidance, explicitly saying the president and vice president and their top lawyers can discuss ongoing criminal and civil cases with the attorney general and her deputies, according to a memo obtained by The Washington Post. The memo largely reflects guidance given during the first Trump administration, though it more clearly specifies that the president is not prohibited from discussing any types of cases with the attorney general. In the post-Watergate era, the White House and Justice Department have tried to maintain clear lines of separation to prevent the president and his aides from influencing sensitive cases. White House counsel David Warrington also makes clear that President Trump, Vice President Vance and their counsels may ask about criminal and civil investigations.
That guidance is significant in an administration that has vowed to upend the Justice Department and the FBI, which Trump and his allies have accused of mistreating him. Experts say the guidance could erode guardrails that have traditionally given the Justice Department a degree of independence from the White House that does not exist for other executive branch agencies. The Warrington memo includes language stressing that it is important to ensure that “DOJ exercises its investigatory and prosecutorial functions free from the appearance of improper political influence.” Bob Bauer, President Obama’s White House counsel and a professor at New York University School of Law, called such memos “good organizational hygiene” and said the president and everyone in the White House should not be picking up the phone to speak to Justice Department leaders about investigations. He cautioned that the memos are guidelines and there are not legal consequences for straying from them. "As a vitally important norm, you do not want the president to be communicating about specific cases,” Bauer said. “But it is a norm, not a constitutional legal obligation.”
Comments