2026年4月3日 下午4:41 美东时间 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：蒂尔尼·斯尼德
美国司法部
美国司法部一份新备忘录称，总统唐纳德·特朗普无需再遵守一项水门时代出台的法律，该法律曾禁止他在离任后保留总统档案。
政府监督组织表示，这是本届政府阻碍透明度的最新举措，也是特朗普在国家档案馆引发其被控不当处理国防材料的刑事案件后，再次对该机构发难。
司法部法律顾问办公室——负责为行政部门提供法律咨询的机构——周四发布一份意见，称《总统档案法》违宪。
“（因此）总统无需再遵守该法的规定，”该意见写道。
左翼政府透明度组织“华盛顿问责与道德公民”主席唐纳德·谢尔曼表示，此前没有任何总统提出过该法律违反宪法分权条款的立场。
谢尔曼说，这份意见“是总统持续升级的攻击透明度和监督行动的一部分”。
相关报道
2026年3月31日，唐纳德·特朗普总统在白宫椭圆形办公室签署行政命令后回答记者提问。亚历克斯·布兰登/美联社/档案照片
特朗普在美国邮政署推行的邮寄投票新规则违宪，三起诉讼称 阅读时长：4分钟
该法律是在水门丑闻后出台的，要求总统在离任白宫时，将其任期内的政府文件移交给国家档案馆。该法律还规定档案可供后续政府、国会以及最终根据《信息自由法》向公众开放。
其相关规定还促成了特别检察官杰克·史密斯对特朗普不当处理机密文件的指控；此次刑事调查源于国家档案馆难以让特朗普归还其第一任期结束时带走的政府文件，而调查人员发现其中包含高度机密材料。
曾在巴拉克·奥巴马和比尔·克林顿两届政府的白宫法律顾问办公室任职的弗吉尼亚·坎特表示，法律顾问办公室的这份意见相当于批准特朗普在再次离任白宫后保留敏感文件，甚至可以将其“卖给出价最高的竞标者”。
乔恩·埃尔威克/美联社
“其影响远超我们的想象，”现为“民主捍卫者”组织首席法律顾问的坎特说道，该组织曾在法庭上挑战特朗普的多项政策。
白宫在一份声明中为特朗普保留档案的举措辩护，称其总统团队“必须开展档案培训，以便他们妥善保存所有与以下内容相关的材料：履行职责所产生的具有历史价值的资料、政策决策和行动的行政记录，以及诉讼需求”。
“总统还将保留现行的电子档案系统——电子邮件和文件无法从白宫系统中删除，”白宫发言人阿比盖尔·杰克逊在一份声明中说道，随后她澄清“我们对实体档案和电子档案的立场没有区别”。
当被CNN问及特朗普是否承诺在总统任期结束时移交这些文件时，杰克逊表示：“本届政府已经在与国家档案馆讨论推进方式。”
备忘录对监督的影响
法律顾问办公室历来秉持对行政部门极为有利的法律立场。但法律专家表示，即便以此标准衡量，周四这份宣布《总统档案法》违宪的意见也过于极端。
“历史上法律顾问办公室曾多次就《总统档案法》发表意见并提供建议，”曾在法律顾问办公室和白宫法律顾问办公室任职的肯塔基大学法学院教授乔纳森·肖布说道，“我从未听过有人认为该法违宪，尤其是从表面看就整体违宪。”
法律顾问办公室称，该法律违宪地监管了总统行为，并威胁会“阻碍”总统履职，称其“限制了总统的日常运作”。
该意见称，国会在通过该法律时缺乏“合法的立法目的”，暗示议员们永远不可能有“正当理由”调查白宫的内部运作。
该意见还称，相关宪法条款仅允许国会通过强化总统职权的法律，而国会无权通过限制总统职权的法律。
“该备忘录错误地将《总统档案法》描述为对总统宪法职能的监管，而这正是其分析的核心依据，”左翼政府透明度组织“美国监督”的副执行主任莉兹·亨普维茨说道，“事实上，《总统档案法》管辖的是联邦财产档案的所有权和保存，这完全属于国会的权限范围。”
该意见不具备法院发布的法律意见的效力，但法律顾问办公室的备忘录被视为对行政部门具有约束力，除非法院要求某机构另行执行。
内森·霍华德/路透社/档案照片
该法律并未要求总统在总统任期结束前向档案馆移交任何文件。但其档案保存条款实际上禁止销毁可能引起国会近期监督兴趣的文件。
这些监督工作通常涉及立法和行政部门之间的互谅互让；法律顾问办公室借此辩称，国会已有的杠杆——比如其拨款权或确认任命官员的职权——意味着该法律没有合法的立法目的。
“法律顾问办公室意见中提及的（国会和总统之间的）传统互谅互让过程……如果总统可以自由销毁文件，就无法实现，”曾在参议院多个共和党办公室任职、现为保守派律师和前公职人员组织“法治协会”负责人的格雷格·农齐亚塔说道，该组织曾公开反对特朗普。
法庭挑战途径有限
政府透明度组织急于将法律顾问办公室的立场提交法院，但承认此举可能途径有限，因为诉讼提起时机受程序规则约束。
目前谁有资格起诉本届政府尚不明确，因为该法律最重要的条款要到本届政府任期结束才会生效，而白宫表示将坚持此前的档案保留标准。
《总统档案法》下的最后一次重大法律行动是司法部2022年起诉前特朗普顾问彼得·纳瓦罗，指控他未将其通过个人电子邮件账户保存的、与白宫职责相关的通信移交给档案馆。
公众的信息自由申请面临风险
一个关键问题是，未回应CNN此次报道问询的档案馆，将如何理解该意见对其已持有的往届总统档案的适用性。
根据该法律，总统档案至少要在其离任五年后才能根据《信息自由法》获取。
“鉴于特朗普首届政府结束已过去五年，法律顾问办公室的意见留下了一个疑问：特朗普政府是否会追溯适用该意见，声称其首届政府的档案应被视为‘私人’性质，无法根据纳入《总统档案法》的《信息自由法》条款获取，”前国家档案馆诉讼主任杰森·R·巴伦说道。
如果一起司法部以《总统档案法》违宪为由拒绝移交文件而引发的信息自由诉讼案件进入法院，法院将有机会对此作出裁决。
J·戴维·阿克/盖蒂图片社/档案照片
特朗普第二任期初期就解雇了国家档案管理员科琳·肖根，而在档案馆要求特朗普归还其首届任期结束后带走的文件时，肖根本就尚未上任。周五，白宫证实，目前担任总务管理局局长的埃德·福斯特将担任代理国家档案管理员，特朗普提名的永久人选正在等待参议院确认。
考虑到特朗普过去处理政府文件的行为，参议院肯定会就《总统档案法》的立场质询这位被提名者布拉德福德·威尔逊。
现为马里兰大学教授的巴伦预计，威尔逊会表明自己将遵守法律顾问办公室的意见。
“无论《总统档案法》命运如何，如果下一位档案管理员不积极游说确保国家档案馆接管所有与政府事务相关的白宫档案，那都将是一场悲剧，”他说，“法律顾问办公室的意见削弱了政府问责，因为我们了解政府动向的能力被削弱了，而下一位档案管理员不应参与其中。”
CNN记者杰米·甘格尔对本文亦有贡献。
Trump’s DOJ tells Trump he can hold onto government docs when he leaves office, contrary to Watergate-era law
2026-04-03 4:41 PM ET / CNN
By Tierney Sneed
This photo from the US Justice Department shows boxes of classified documents stored in a bathroom and shower in the Mar-a-Lago Club.
US Department of Justice
A new memo from the Justice Department says President Donald Trump no longer has to follow a Watergate-era law barring him from holding on to presidential records when he leaves office.
It is the latest action by the administration to stymie transparency, government watchdog groups say, and yet another Trump swipe at the National Archives after its role in prompting the criminal case he faced for allegedly mishandling national defense materials.
The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel – which gives legal advice to the executive branch – issued an opinion Thursday that said the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional.
“(T) he President need not further comply with its dictates,” the opinion said.
No president prior has taken the position that the law violates the separation of powers provisions of the Constitution, said Donald Sherman, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning government transparency group.
The opinion “is part of the President’s ongoing and escalating assault on transparency and oversight,” Sherman said.
Related article President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters after signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House, on March 31, 2026. Alex Brandon/AP/File Trump’s new role for USPS in mail balloting is unconstitutional, three lawsuits say 4 min read
The law was passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal and requires that presidents hand over the government documents from their time in office to the National Archives when they exit the White House. It also makes records accessible to future administrations, Congress and, eventually, to the public under the Freedom of Information Act.
Its mandates also helped spur the charges of mishandling classified documents against Trump brought by special counsel Jack Smith; the criminal probe grew out of the difficulties the National Archives had in getting Trump to return government documents he took with him at the end of his first term and investigators discovered that among those records were highly classified materials.
According to Virginia Canter, who worked in the White House Counsel’s Office under Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, the OLC opinion gives Trump the okay to hold on to sensitive documents when he leaves the White House again and even sell them to the “highest bidder.”
A page from a FBI property list of items seized from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and made public by the Department of Justice, are photographed Friday, Sept. 2, 2022.
Jon Elswick/AP
“The ramifications are beyond anything we could imagine,” said Canter, now chief counsel of Democracy Defenders, which has challenged several Trump policies in court.
The White House defended Trump’s commitment to preserving his records in a statement that said his presidential staff “must undertake records training so they properly preserve all materials related to: the performance of their duties for historical value, the administrative record of policy decisions and actions, and litigation needs.”
“The President will also retain the program currently in place for electronic records – emails and documents cannot be deleted from the White House system,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement, later clarifying the there was “no difference between our position on physical versus electronic records.”
Asked by CNN if Trump was committed to turning over those documents at the end of his presidency, Jackson said, “the administration is already discussing with NARA how to move forward.”
Memo’s impact on oversight
The OLC has historically taken legal views that are very favorable to the executive branch. But even by those standards, Thursday’s opinion the Presidential Records act was extreme, legal experts said.
“There are all kinds of past instances in which OLC has talked about and advised about the Presidential Records Act,” said Jonathan Shaub, a Kentucky Law School Professor who previously worked both in the OLC and the White House Counsel’s office. “I never heard a suggestion that it was unconstitutional, particularly not unconstitutional in its entirety, on its face.”
The OLC says that the law unconstitutionally regulates presidential conduct and threatens to “impede” the presidency in the way “constrains the President’s day-to-day operations.”
Congress, the opinion says, lacked a “valid legislative purpose” in passing it, suggesting that lawmakers could never have “legitimate” reason to study the internal workings of the White House.
The opinion also said the relevant constitutional clause allows Congress only to pass laws that boost the presidency, and that Congress cannot pass laws that constrain the presidency.
“The memo mischaracterizes the Presidential Records Act as regulating the President’s constitutional functions, and that’s really what its analysis rests on,” said Liz Hempowicz, the deputy executive director of the left-leaning government transparency group American Oversight. “In fact, the Presidential Records Act governs the ownership and preservation of federal property records, which is an area that is squarely within Congress’s authority.”
The opinion does not have the weight of a legal opinion issued by a court, but OLC memos are seen as binding on the executive branch unless a court tells an agency otherwise.
President Donald Trump writes his signature, as he signs executive orders and proclamations in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 9, 2025.
Nathan Howard/Reuters/File
The law does not require the president to give any documents to the Archives until the end of his presidency. But its records preservations provisions have the effect of prohibiting the destruction of documents that might be of interest to Congress in its near-term oversight.
Those oversight efforts usually involve a give-and-take between the legislative and executive branch; the OLC leaned on that dynamic to argue the leverage points Congress already has – such as its funding powers or its role in confirming appointee – mean there is no valid legislative purpose for law.
“The traditional back-and-forth process that the OLC opinion is referring to (between Congress and the President) … can’t happen if the President is free to destroy stuff,” said Gregg Nunziata, who worked for several Republican offices in the Senate and now leads Society for the Rule of Law, a group of conservative lawyers and former public servants that has pushed back against Trump..
Limited ways to challenge in court
Government transparency groups are eager to put the OLC’s position before a court, but acknowledge that their avenues for doing so may be limited, because of procedural rules that dictate when a lawsuit can be brought.
Who would have standing now to sue the administration is not immediately obvious, since the law’s most significant provision doesn’t snap into effect until the end of administration and the White House says that it is sticking to its previous standards for retaining the records.
The last major legal action brought under the Presidential Records Act was the lawsuit the Justice Department brought in 2022 against former Trump adviser Peter Navarro, for allegedly failing to turn over communications to the Archives related to his White House duties that he held on his personal email account.
FOIA access for public at risk
One key question is how the Archives – which did not respond to CNN’s inquiries for this story – will understand how it applies to documents it already holds from past presidencies.
Under the law, a president’s records cannot be obtained by FOIA until at least five years after his exit from office.
“Now that five years has passed since the end of the first Trump administration, the OLC opinion leaves open whether the Trump Justice Department will apply it retroactively to say that records from his first administration should have been deemed ‘personal’ in nature, and are not accessible under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act incorporated into the PRA,” said Jason R. Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.
A FOIA case in which the Justice Department was defending the refusal to turn over documents because it had determined the Presidential Records Act was unconstitutional would give a court the opportunity to weigh in.
A sign marks the location of the Archives of the United States building in Washington, DC, on August 20, 2025.
J. David Ake/Getty Images/File
Early into the second term, Trump fired National Archivist Colleen Shogan, who was not even in the role when the Archives sought the return of the documents Trump took with him after his first administration. On Friday, the White House confirmed that the current head of the Government Services Administration, Ed Forst, is serving as the acting National Archivist, while Trump’s nominee for the permanent role awaits confirmation
Given Trump’s past conduct with government documents, it seems guaranteed the nominee, Bradford Wilson, will be asked by the Senate for his views on the Presidential Records Act.
Baron, who is now a professor at the University of Maryland, expects Wilson to take the position that he is bound by the OLC’s opinion.
“Whatever the fate of the Presidential Records Act, it would be a tragedy if the next Archivist fails to aggressively lobby for NARA taking custody of all White House records related to government business,” he said. “The OLC opinion undermines government accountability by diminishing our ability to know what our government has been up to, and the next Archivist should not be a party to it.”
CNN’s Jamie Gangel contributed to this report.