The Trump administration is refusing to disclose the identities of White House advisers involved in developing a series of executive orders targeting major law firms, telling a federal court that those communications are protected by presidential privilege.
In a filing submitted in federal court in Washington, the Justice Department formally invoked executive privilege after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to identify people who helped draft, review and approve the orders issued against law firms and attorneys.
The records are being sought by the American Bar Association as part of its lawsuit challenging the administration’s actions. The organization argues that the policy improperly targeted law firms over their legal work, hiring practices, diversity policies and political connections.
The administration contends that forcing disclosure of the advisers would interfere with presidential decision-making and raise constitutional concerns involving the separation of powers. It also warned that revealing such communications could make advisers less willing to provide candid guidance to the president.
The Justice Department characterized advice given to Trump and his senior advisers as falling within the central protection of the presidential communications privilege.
The administration cited a 2004 Supreme Court ruling involving former Vice President Dick Cheney, arguing that the decision places limits on efforts to obtain internal White House information.
Officials stressed that the privilege would not be used to conceal material that is already public. Information contained in official statements and White House social media posts, for example, would remain available.
The dispute is unfolding against the backdrop of a broader confrontation between the Trump administration and the legal industry.
Four law firms have already secured permanent court orders blocking enforcement of Trump’s executive actions against them. The administration has appealed those rulings. Nine other firms reached agreements with the White House that allowed them to avoid comparable measures while committing to provide almost $1 billion in free legal services for causes supported by the administration.
The ABA’s lawsuit now puts the administration’s internal decision-making under renewed scrutiny. The latest privilege claim means the court will have to weigh the group’s demand for information against the White House’s assertion that presidential confidentiality protects the advisers involved.
The case, American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
