2026年5月20日 / 美国东部时间下午3:27 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿专电—— 一名联邦法官周三下令白宫工作人员及特朗普总统的高级顾问遵守一项要求保存特定总统记录的法律。
在一份长达54页的判决书中，美国地区法官约翰·贝茨批准了一项初步禁令，要求大多数白宫雇员保存《总统记录法》涵盖的总统和副总统记录。这部1978年出台的法律是水门事件后的产物，确立了总统记录归公众所有的原则。
受贝茨命令约束的人员包括白宫办公厅主任苏西·瓦尔斯、副幕僚长斯蒂芬·米勒、国家安全委员会、经济顾问委员会以及总统行政办公室内的工作人员。特朗普总统和副总统JD·万斯不受该法官指令的约束。禁令将于5月26日上午9点生效。
该判决源于司法部法律办公室上月发布的一份备忘录意见，该意见称《总统记录法》违宪，因为它超出了国会的权力范围。该办公室表示，特朗普因此无需遵守该法。
两个历史与政府监督团体——美国历史学会和美国监督组织，以及新闻自由基金会，提起诉讼要求推翻司法部的这一意见。他们请求法官下令白宫官员遵守《总统记录法》并保存相关记录。
在批准这一救济请求的判决中，贝茨法官写道，《总统记录法》“很可能符合宪法”，这与司法部的结论相悖。
“如果采纳政府关于该法违宪的立场，将使国会和历届总统无法从过往经验中汲取教训，这违背了华盛顿国家档案馆大楼上镌刻的那句话：‘过去是序幕’，”贝茨写道，“尽管总统职位是一个极其重要的机构，但这种重要性并不会使其免于适度的约束。恰恰相反，政府每个部门的权力都来自人民对其的信任，而国会已合法认定，该法通过让总统及其助手的活动接受一定监督，有助于维系这种信任。”
法官指出，自理查德·尼克松总统以来，再未发生过水门事件级别的丑闻，这“表明《记录法》作为‘阳光消毒剂’的作用正按预期发挥”。
“本法院、法律办公室或白宫都无权对国会的合法决定指手画脚——该决定至少依据两项明确授予的权力作出——即公民最终应当有权查阅以他们名义开展的总统活动的相关记录，”贝茨写道。
原告方对这一紧急救济裁决表示欢迎。
“今天的裁决是总统问责制的重要胜利，也确认了数十年来法律与实践早已确立的事实——《总统记录法》符合宪法，”美国监督组织执行主任奇奥玛·楚库在一份声明中表示，“法院认识到，本届政府试图摒弃长期以来规范总统记录的联邦法律，代之以主要依赖总统自由裁量权和公众信任的体系，这构成了严重威胁。”
《总统记录法》在尼克松辞职四年后出台，规定总统记录归美国政府所有，而非总统个人，且必须予以保存。该法要求总统在任期结束时将大部分文件移交国家档案和记录管理局，并规定了任期内及任期后信息的维护、获取和保存要求。
该法律适用于总统、副总统以及总统行政办公室的特定部门，如国家安全委员会。“纯属私人或非公开性质”的总统个人记录不在《总统记录法》的覆盖范围内。
在诉讼中，全球最大的历史学家会员组织美国历史学会，以及非营利政府监督团体美国监督组织警告称，有“充分理由”相信特朗普会在2029年1月任期结束时试图扣留总统记录。
这些团体指出，特朗普在第一任期于2021年初结束时，曾扣留15箱记录，档案部门花了数月时间才追回。这些箱子里装有数千份文件，其中一些带有密级标识，特朗普声称《总统记录法》允许他保留这些记录。
他后来被前特别检察官杰克·史密斯以30多项罪名起诉，罪名是涉嫌不当处理机密记录，但该案件在特朗普2024年连任后结案。
司法部未立即就法官的裁决置评请求作出回应。
Judge orders White House staff to comply with presidential records law that DOJ calls unconstitutional
May 20, 2026 / 3:27 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered White House staff and President Trump’s top advisers to comply with a law that requires certain presidential records to be preserved.
In a 54-page decision, U.S. District Judge John Bates granted a preliminary injunction that requires most White House employees to preserve presidential and vice presidential records covered by the Presidential Records Act. The 1978 law was enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal and established public ownership of presidential records.
Among those who must comply with Bates’ order are White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the National Security Council, Council of Economic Advisers and employees working within the Executive Office of the President. Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance are not covered by the judge’s directive. The injunction takes effect at 9 a.m. on May 26.
The decision stems from a memorandum opinion issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel last month that claimed the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’ power. The office said Mr. Trump therefore didn’t need to comply with it.
Two historical and government oversight groups, the American Historical Association and American Oversight, as well as the Freedom of the Press Foundation, sued to invalidate the Justice Department’s opinion. They asked the judge to order White House officials to comply with the Presidential Records Act and preserve records.
In his decision granting that request for relief, the judge wrote that the Presidential Records Act is “likely constitutional,” splitting from the Justice Department’s determination.
“To adopt the government’s position that the Act is unconstitutional would disable Congress and future Presidents from reflecting on experience, in defiance of the very words engraved on the National Archives Building in Washington: ‘What is past is prologue,’” Bates wrote. “And while the presidency is a singularly important institution, that gravity does not free it from modest constraint. Quite the opposite. Each branch of government derives its authority from the trust placed in it by the People, and Congress has validly determined that this Act helps to maintain that trust by shining some light on the activities of the President and his aides.”
The judge noted that there has not been another Watergate-level scandal since President Richard Nixon, which “suggests that the sunshine disinfectant of the Records Act is working as intended.”
“It is not for this Court, the Office of Legal Counsel, or the White House to second guess Congress’s lawful determination — made pursuant to at least two different enumerated powers — that citizens ought eventually to have access to these records of presidential activities carried out in their name,” Bates wrote.
The plaintiffs cheered the decision granting them emergency relief.
“Today’s ruling is an important victory for presidential accountability and for affirming what decades of law and practice already established — the constitutionality of the Presidential Records Act,” Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, said in a statement. “The court recognized the serious danger posed by the administration’s attempt to cast aside longstanding federal law governing presidential records and replace it with a system dependent largely on presidential discretion and public trust.”
Enacted four years after Nixon’s resignation, the Presidential Records Act established that presidential records belong to the U.S. government, not the president personally, and must be preserved. The law requires most of a president’s documents to be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration at the end of an administration and lays out requirements for the maintenance, access and preservation of information during and after a presidency.
The law governs the records of the president, vice president and certain parts of the Executive Office of the President, such as the National Security Council. The president’s personal records, which are those of a “purely private or nonpublic character,” are excluded from the Presidential Records Act.
In their lawsuit, the American Historical Association, the largest membership association of historians in the world, and American Oversight, a nonprofit government watchdog group, warned there was “strong reason” to believe Mr. Trump would attempt to keep presidential records when his term ends in January 2029.
The groups pointed to his decision at the end of his first term in early 2021 to hold onto 15 boxes of records, which the Archives fought for months to get back. The boxes contained thousands of documents, some of which were marked classified, and Mr. Trump claimed the Presidential Records Act allowed him to keep the records.
He was later indicted by former special counsel Jack Smith on more than three dozen charges for alleged mishandling of classified records, but the case ended after Mr. Trump was reelected in 2024.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the judge’s ruling.
发表回复