'Executive Privilege' Should End
On Nov. 9, D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan refused former President Donald Trump's request, based on "executive privilege," for a preliminary injunction forbidding the National Archives and Records Administration from releasing documents to the U.S. House committee grandstanding on—er, "investigating"—the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
If Trump's name goes down in history for anything of substance rather than mere flash, it should probably be for his bizarre claim that people who aren't executives anymore retain executive privilege over information pertaining to their time in office.
The concept of executive privilege appears nowhere in the Constitution but was instead developed in court decisions, culminating in 1974's U.S. v. Nixon.
Nixon lost that case and was required to turn over audiotapes of Oval Office conversations as part of the Watergate scandal that led to his resignation. But the Supreme Court did assert a "valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them," so as to encourage "candor" rather than "a concern for appearances and for their own interests." Appeals to national security, justified or not, also remain a perennial executive privilege favorite.
What we haven't faced before is a legal test of the notion that executive privilege inheres in the person rather than the office, remaining a former president's prerogative after he's lost his bid for re-election and returned to private life. It's a silly notion without basis in law, jurisprudence, tradition or common sense.
The U.S. government's executive branch records logically fall under the stewardship of that branch and of its current chief executive, not of every Bill, George, Barack and Donald who may have held the post in the past. And the purpose of that stewardship supposedly answers to claims of "the common good" rather than the comfort of former executives. President Joe Biden, the current chief executive, has directed the National Archives to release the documents requested by Congress, leading to Trump's challenge.
The bigger question is whether the idea of executive privilege has any defensible place at all in a government that claims to be a democratic republic made legitimate by the consent of the governed. The answer is no.
The purpose of the executive branch is to execute the will of Congress and, by supposed extension, the people. The president isn't a king and the U.S. government isn't a company he owns. He's an employee, a functionary, a gofer. He operates at the direction and behest of Congress. His actions should therefore be subject to its constant examination and evaluation.
Donald Trump isn't even any of those things anymore. He's just a disgruntled former employee who enjoys no plausible "privilege" whatsoever regarding the historical records of his administration and its actions.
THOMAS L. KNAPP
William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism
Care to sound off on a feature in our pages or about a local concern? Write to comments@cityweekly.net or post your thoughts on our social media. We want to hear from you!
More by City Weekly Readers
-
Feedback from January 2 and Beyond
- Jan 8, 2025
-
Feedback from December 26 and Beyond
- Jan 2, 2025
-
Feedback from December 19 and Beyond
- Dec 26, 2024
- More »
Latest in Letters
