A new federal lawsuit is seeking to block what advocacy groups describe as a sweeping and unlawful attempt by the Trump administration to dismantle long-standing requirements governing the preservation of presidential records, warning of a “real and immediate threat” that key documents could be destroyed or sold.
The complaint, filed in Washington, D.C., by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, challenges the administration’s alleged policy of non-compliance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA).
The lawsuit names Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and Acting Archivist Edward Forst as defendants. Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the administration’s position unlawful and to permanently block its implementation.
At the center of the dispute is a controversial April 1 memorandum issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, authored by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser. The opinion argues that presidential records should be treated as personal property rather than public records—a position that plaintiffs say directly contradicts decades of statutory and constitutional precedent.
The memo reportedly draws on the dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case to argue that earlier efforts to impose criminal liability for handling presidential records were misguided. It further contends that congressional reforms enacted after the Watergate scandal—including the PRA—are “invalid in [their] entirety.”
Plaintiffs strongly reject that interpretation, warning that it effectively revives a pre-Watergate legal framework in which presidents could exercise near-total discretion over official records. According to the complaint, such a shift would allow a sitting or former president to “destroy or sell” records at will, potentially erasing critical documentation of executive decision-making.
“The PRA was designed to fix failings in the legal regime that enabled these abuses,” the lawsuit states, referencing former President Richard Nixon and his attempts to conceal evidence during Watergate. Congress enacted the PRA in 1978 to ensure that presidential records are preserved as public property under the custody of the National Archives.
Under the statute, the federal government retains “complete ownership, possession, and control” over presidential records, and presidents are required to document official activities, deliberations, and decisions. These records are then transferred to NARA at the end of an administration.
The lawsuit argues that the administration’s current stance undermines both statutory law and Supreme Court precedent, creating what plaintiffs describe as an urgent risk to historical transparency and democratic accountability.
“Defendants’ unlawful actions pose a real and immediate threat that Presidential records will be irrevocably destroyed and forever lost to history,” the complaint asserts.
The case has been assigned to Senior U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, who will oversee initial proceedings.
Legal analysts say the outcome could have far-reaching implications for executive power, recordkeeping obligations, and the balance between presidential authority and public access to government information. The case also raises broader constitutional questions about Congress’s authority to regulate the preservation of executive branch records.
As litigation proceeds, the dispute is expected to test the durability of post-Watergate reforms designed to ensure transparency at the highest levels of government.
