Alarm as Trump's DOJ clears path for him to destroy the admin's files

Source: Raw Story

Raw Story combines syndicated articles, aggregated material from sources like MSN and SmartNews, and its own independent reporting, with a track record of scooping major outlets and receiving awards for investigative work on topics like domestic extremism and congressional conflicts-of-interest. However, its homepage prominently features sensational, Trump-critical headlines alongside subscription prompts for 'honest news,' raising questions about incentives tied to reader engagement and revenue from a partisan audience. User reviews on Google Play are polarized, praising it as a 'deep dive behind the scenes' while criticizing poor app functionality and 'constant misspells' that undermine credibility.

Source: Robert Davis Raw Story

Robert Davis is a freelance journalist with nearly two decades of experience in reporting, photography, editing, and design, contributing articles to Raw Story on topics like DHS surveillance technology and criticisms of Trump administration figures. He is listed as a product editor for The Washington Post's homepage and news alerts teams and has published in outlets like coloradosun.com, progressive.org, and ncrc.org. No fact-checking ratings, error rates, or third-party credibility assessments appear in the search results.

Source: David A. Graham The Atlantic

David A. Graham is a staff writer at The Atlantic, covering politics, criminal justice, and authoring the Atlantic Daily newsletter. His 2020 presidential election coverage earned the 2021 Toner Prize for Excellence in National Political Reporting from Syracuse University's Newhouse School. He authored the New York Times bestselling book 'The Project: How Project 2025 Is Reshaping America,' focusing on Trump administration policies.

Framing

Headline uses alarmist language: "Alarm as Trump's DOJ clears path for him to destroy the admin's files" – presents an advisory OLC legal opinion as a definitive grant of "power to destroy" records.

Creates impression of imminent, intentional destruction rather than a contested legal opinion subject to court review, heightening fear and urgency.

Emotional Manipulation

Quotes Graham's alarm ("expressed alarm") and phrases like "destroy the records," "poorly documented president since at least Richard Nixon" without balancing OLC's legal arguments or counterviews.

Amplifies emotional response via snarl words ("destroy") and historical Nixon parallel, implying scandal without noting memo's focus on executive autonomy precedents.

Source Credibility

Article from Raw Story (progressive, anti-Trump) by Robert Davis (progressive-leaning, Trump-critical); primarily aggregates/quotes David A. Graham (Atlantic, consistent Trump critic, author of anti-Project 2025 book).

Single-source reliance on ideologically aligned critic creates echo chamber effect, omitting diverse perspectives on OLC's separation-of-powers argument.

Missing Context

The OLC memo, issued April 1, 2026 by Assistant AG T. Elliot Gaiser, argues PRA is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress's enumerated powers, aggrandizes legislative branch, and impairs executive autonomy (e.g., compares to expropriating Supreme Court justices' papers).

Without the memo's core legal reasoning (separation of powers, historical precedents of presidents owning papers), readers can't evaluate if it's a radical "power grab" or principled constitutional argument.

Missing Context

American Historical Association and American Oversight filed a federal lawsuit on April 7, 2026 (AHA v. Trump) challenging the OLC memo's constitutionality, seeking injunction to enforce PRA.

Shows the opinion is immediately contested and not yet settled law, countering narrative of unchecked "power" granted to Trump.

Omission

No mention of OLC opinions being advisory/non-binding until judicial review; frames as immediate "power" to destroy records.

Misleads on legal effect – OLC advises executive but doesn't bind courts or override statutes without ruling.

Missing Context

References Trump's first-term PRA issues but doesn't note no criminal charges or court findings of violation; staff taped documents per reports.

Implies proven malfeasance ("alleged violations") without clarifying they were reported but not adjudicated.

Missing Context

Prior to the PRA in 1978, U.S. presidents personally owned and could dispose of their administration's records as private property, a practice from Washington through Carter.

Provides historical baseline for OLC's argument that PRA marked a departure from tradition, challenging the portrayal of PRA as unquestioned bedrock since Watergate.

Framing

Presents OLC advisory opinion as definitively 'giving [Trump] the power to destroy' records, ignoring its non-binding nature and ongoing lawsuit.

Implies settled authority rather than a contested legal position pending judicial review, misleading on immediacy and finality.

Source Credibility

Sole reliance on David A. Graham's newsletter for analysis, without summarizing OLC memo itself or including DOJ/OLC response.

Filters event through one critic's lens (Graham's book on Project 2025, consistent anti-Trump), creating one-sided narrative without primary source or balancing views.