Appeals court appears skeptical of Trump's attempt to shield presidential records
- D.C. Circuit judges grill DOJ over claim Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional.
- Trump team argues presidents own official papers—potentially allowing destruction or sale.
- Judge Millett scorches logic: 'Can the president then offer on eBay to sell them?'
- Emboldened legal stance could shield Trump from classified docs case—for now.
- Two Obama-appointed judges signal deep skepticism; ruling pending on historic power grab.
Brief Summary
Trump’s legal team went to court to argue the Presidential Records Act—a post-Watergate safeguard—is unconstitutional, effectively claiming the president owns his official papers outright. A D.C. Circuit panel wasn’t having it, with Judge Patricia Millett pushing the DOJ to the brink: if presidents own records, can they just hawk state secrets on eBay? The administration’s radical position would let Trump destroy or withhold anything from his current term without consequence, gutting the very law that underpins the classified documents case against him. Judges Millett and Cornelia Pillard treated the argument as a joke wrapped in a national security crisis, and not the amusing kind. The DOJ lawyer spent the hearing backpedaling, but the damage to the “absolutist presidency” theory may already be done.
Why This Matters
This isn’t just legal navel-gazing—if Trump wins, he gets to define the presidency as a private franchise, with all the secrecy and no accountability. That sets a precedent that makes the “I’m the president, I get to do what I want” meme the actual law of the land. The ruling could determine whether the Mar-a-Lago classified docs case survives or dies, and whether every future president can purge inconvenient records like it’s a garage sale. The stakes go beyond Trump: this threatens the entire architecture of government transparency. And if judges are already laughing at the argument, Trump’s own lawyers may be sweating about their next move.