{"id":52303,"date":"2026-04-09T23:24:46","date_gmt":"2026-04-09T23:24:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/?p=52303"},"modified":"2026-04-09T23:24:46","modified_gmt":"2026-04-09T23:24:46","slug":"the-american-historical-association-watchdog-historians-sue-to-block-trumps-effort-to-evade-presidential-records-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/?p=52303","title":{"rendered":"The American Historical Association: Watchdog, Historians Sue to Block Trump\u2019s Effort to Evade Presidential Records Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Lawsuit Comes Just Days After Trump DOJ Advanced Sweeping Effort to Block Access to Hundreds of Millions of Documents from Current, Past Administrations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2014<\/strong> American Oversight and the American Historical Association have filed suit<\/a> challenging a sweeping memorandum from the Department of Justice\u2019s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that declared<\/a> the Presidential Records Act (PRA) is unconstitutional and that President Donald Trump \u201cneed not further comply\u201d with its requirements, effectively encouraging the president to violate federal law. The lawsuit argues that the memo relies on virtually no judicial authority and defies binding Supreme Court precedent outright, representing a radical attempt to nullify a law that has governed presidential records for nearly half a century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The memo reflects a broader push to concentrate power in the presidency, at the expense of the public\u2019s right to know. If allowed to stand, the administration\u2019s position could have sweeping consequences far beyond President Trump\u2019s own records, threatening to upend decades of established law governing presidential transparency. Legal experts and historians warn that applying the opinion could block public access to hundreds of millions of records \u2014 including more than 700 million White House emails \u2014 and disrupt the established process for releasing records from prior administrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSince Watergate, Congress has made clear that presidential records belong to the American people \u2014 not to any one president,\u201d said Chioma Chukwu, Executive Director of American Oversight.<\/strong> \u201cThe DOJ is now pushing a sweeping view of presidential power that would hand control of those records to the White House \u2014 a position the Supreme Court has already rejected. The White House does not get to decide what is preserved, what is hidden, or what is destroyed. The law sets an independent process, followed by every administration for nearly half a century, to safeguard public access. If that framework is cast aside, it puts critical records at risk of being controlled, concealed, or even destroyed before the public ever has a chance to see them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSince its founding in 1884, the American Historical Association has advocated for the preservation of federal records,\u201d said Dr. Sarah Weicksel, the Association\u2019s executive director.<\/strong> \u201cThe AHA\u2019s 1910 argument in support of establishing a National Archives remains true in this current fight for preservation: these records are \u2018materials which historians must use in order to ascertain the truth.\u2019 Presidential records are essential for transparency and accountability in our democracy; they are also essential sources for researching and understanding the American past. Those records and the history they tell belong not to any individual, but to the American people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The PRA was enacted<\/a> in 1978 in the wake of the Watergate scandal to ensure the preservation and public accessibility of presidential records. It established that presidential records are the property of the American people, not the president. In upholding a prior law governing President Richard Nixon\u2019s records, the Supreme Court rejected claims that such requirements violate separation of powers, affirming Congress\u2019s authority to regulate the preservation and disclosure of presidential materials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since then, no presidential administration \u2014 including Trump\u2019s administration in his first term \u2014 has questioned the law\u2019s constitutionality. As recently as last year, the Trump administration itself acknowledged in litigation that White House agencies and offices are subject to the PRA and must comply with its requirements, underscoring the abrupt and self-serving nature of its current reversal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lawsuit<\/a> also raises urgent concerns about the administration\u2019s current recordkeeping practices in the wake of the OLC memo. Because OLC memos are typically treated as binding across the executive branch, there is a serious risk that the National Archives and other officials will halt compliance with the PRA altogether. The White House has provided no assurances \u2014 and under its new policy may not even attempt \u2014 to comply with longstanding requirements to preserve presidential records, including restrictions on the use of personal email, text messaging, or encrypted applications for official business. Without those safeguards, records documenting key decisions and actions could be lost, deleted, or never preserved at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among these records are those now eligible<\/a> for public access under the PRA\u2019s five year provision, and for which American Oversight filed a sweeping set of Freedom of Information Act requests seeking records that could provide additional details on corruption, conflicts of interest, and abuses of power during Trump\u2019s first term \u2014 one of the most opaque and controversial presidencies in modern history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In their complaint<\/a>, American Oversight and the American Historical Association ask the court to declare the PRA constitutional, block the administration from relying on the OLC memo, and compel compliance with federal law \u2014 including the preservation of presidential records and the timely release of those records to the public. The case underscores a fundamental principle: presidential records belong to the American people, and no president has the sole authority to control or conceal them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

About American Oversight<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

American Oversight is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit ethics watchdog that uses public records requests backed by litigation to expose official misconduct, threats to democracy, and abuses of power at all levels of government. Documents obtained by American Oversight have supported investigative work by journalists, congressional committees, and independent watchdogs, and have been featured in hundreds of news reports across the country. Follow us at @weareoversight and learn more at americanoversight.org.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About the American Historical Association<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Founded in 1884 and incorporated by Congress in 1889 for the promotion of historical studies, the American Historical Association provides leadership for the discipline and promotes the critical role of historical thinking in public life. The association defends academic freedom, develops professional standards, supports innovative scholarship and teaching, and helps to sustain and enhance the work of historians. As the largest membership association of professional historians in the world (over 10,000 members), the AHA serves historians in a wide variety of professions and represents every historical era and geographical area. Learn more at historians.org.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.historians.org\/news\/aha-files-lawsuit-to-defend-the-presidential-records-act<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":46690,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"spay_email":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[3,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-novosti","category-rasprave"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/historiografija.hr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/AHA-open-graph.png?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52303","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=52303"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52303\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52304,"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52303\/revisions\/52304"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/46690"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=52303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=52303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historiografija.hr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=52303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}