Trump Admin Declares Presidential Records Act Unconstitutional, Gets Sued by Historians

The Trump administration just decided a 48-year-old law doesn't apply to the president anymore. Now historians are fighting back in court.

The American Historical Association and nonprofit watchdog American Oversight filed suit Monday in Washington, D.C., District Court after the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel issued an advisory opinion last week stating Trump "need not further comply" with the Presidential Records Act.

That's the law, passed after Watergate, that says presidential records belong to the public and must be turned over to the National Archives when a president leaves office. Things like emails, phone records, and documents created by White House staff in the course of their official duties. The kind of stuff historians use to understand what actually happened in an administration.

The lawsuit describes the case as an effort to "preserve the historical record that belongs to the American people, before it is forever lost."

A Pattern of Keeping What Isn't His

This isn't theoretical. After his first term, Trump was accused of violating the Presidential Records Act by hoarding boxes of sensitive presidential records at Mar-a-Lago and actively obstructing the government's attempts to get them back. He was indicted for retaining classified information and obstruction of justice, though Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case over concerns about special counsel Jack Smith's appointment.

Now, instead of complying with the law, the Trump administration has simply declared the law unconstitutional. The DOJ opinion gives Trump legal cover to keep doing exactly what he was already doing: treating official government records as his personal property.

Nullifying Laws They Don't Like

The complaint pulls no punches about what's happening here: "The Administration's actions nullifying a law duly enacted by Congress, based on a legal determination that contravenes a decision of the Supreme Court, violate the separation of powers twice over."

That's the core issue. Congress passed a law. The executive branch doesn't get to unilaterally declare it void because it's inconvenient for the president. That's not how separation of powers works in a functioning democracy.

The American Historical Association represents more than 10,000 historians. American Oversight is a nonprofit that uses public records laws to hold government accountable. Together, they're asking a federal judge to declare the Presidential Records Act constitutional and block Trump from using the DOJ opinion to justify keeping official records.

Why This Matters

Presidential records aren't just historical curiosities. They're how the public learns what their government did in their name. They're how journalists uncover corruption. They're how future administrations learn from past mistakes. They're how accountability works in a democracy that depends on transparency.

The Presidential Records Act was passed for a reason. Richard Nixon tried to destroy records that documented his crimes. Congress said never again. Now Trump is trying to carve out an exception for himself, using the Justice Department as his personal law firm.

If the administration succeeds, there will be no complete record of Trump's second term. No way to verify what happened. No accountability for decisions made behind closed doors. Just whatever version of events Trump decides to tell.

That's not preserving history. That's erasing it.

The case is American Historical Association v. Trump, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs are asking for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the administration from treating the Presidential Records Act as optional.