DOJ Says Laws Congress Passed to Prevent Another Nixon Don’t Apply to Trump

The Slate article reports the core content of a recent Office of Legal Counsel opinion on the Presidential Records Act but frames the legal argument through loaded language and Trump-specific personalization that treats a separation-of-powers claim as inherently suspect.

Key findings

• The piece opens by describing the opinion as “a new and disturbing way to try to consolidate power exclusive in the hands of Trump” and labels it a “dubious opinion.” This phrasing assigns negative valence before any legal reasoning is presented.
• The article immediately links the opinion to Trump’s prior classified-documents indictment and his past claim of being “the most transparent president in history,” presenting the legal position as a vehicle for one individual rather than a constitutional argument about presidential independence from Congress.
• No extended quotation or summary of the OLC’s actual separation-of-powers analysis appears in the excerpt; the piece instead moves directly to practical consequences framed around Trump’s personal history.

What was missing and why it matters

The article does not include the OLC memo’s citation of precedents such as *United States v. Morrison* or its textual argument that the Presidential Records Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers. Readers therefore encounter only the conclusion that the statute “invades the president’s independence,” without the constitutional steps the memo uses to reach that result.

Source context

Slate operates as an ad-supported digital magazine with a metered paywall; its Jurisprudence coverage mixes reporting and analysis under an explicit editorial newsletter format titled “Executive Dysfunction.”

How other outlets covered it differently

• justice.gov presented the memo as a straightforward constitutional analysis focused on separation of powers without reference to any sitting president.
• firstamendment.mtsu.edu supplied the 1977 Supreme Court ruling in *Nixon v. GSA* and the $18 million payment details that established the post-Watergate records regime.
• The Conversation emphasized the historical practice of presidents destroying records before 1978 and quoted Carter’s signing statement.

Bottom line

The article correctly identifies the existence and immediate implication of the OLC opinion. Its reliance on alarmist descriptors and individualized framing, however, narrows the presentation of a legal dispute that other sources treat as a contest over constitutional text and precedent.

Further Reading

• justice.gov: OLC opinion text
• firstamendment.mtsu.edu: Presidential Records Act and Department of Justice challenge
• The Conversation: A Justice Department opinion arguing the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional