Judge rules that Trump cannot ignore Presidential Records Act

Michael Macagnone, CQ-Roll Call on May 20, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

WASHINGTON — A Washington federal judge on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration cannot ignore the Presidential Records Act, and held the law is likely constitutional.

The order, from Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, directed White House staff to comply with the law, which requires the preservation of all presidential documents, even those on personal devices. The ruling came in lawsuits brought by the American Historical Association and oversight groups in response to a change in White House policy that could allow for the destruction of records.

In a more than 50-page opinion issued alongside the order, Bates defended the 1978 law passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

“To adopt the government’s position that the Act is unconstitutional would disable Congress and future Presidents from reflecting on experience, in defiance of the very words engraved on the National Archives Building in Washington: ‘What is past is prologue,’” Bates wrote.

Bates noted that his order did not address President Donald Trump or Vice President JD Vance, but instead White House staff. Bates gave the government until next Tuesday before his ruling would take effect.

The government will likely appeal.

The groups who sued praised the decision in statements issued Wednesday, including Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight. Chukwu called it an “important victory for presidential accountability” in a statement.

“The court’s decision helps ensure that the American people — not the White House — retain ownership over the historical record of the presidency. It reaffirms a basic democratic principle: presidents do not get to decide unilaterally what history will remember and what the public will never see,” the statement said.

Bates wrote that the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate uses of federal property, and it can designate presidential records as such and require their preservation.

Bates also noted that the president has a role in determining how the records are preserved, can designate personal files that do not have to be preserved and can delay their public release after he leaves office.

“Each branch of government derives its authority from the trust placed in it by the People, and Congress has validly determined that this Act helps to maintain that trust by shining some light on the activities of the President and his aides,” Bates wrote.

Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that Congress “reasonably” believed in the wake of the Nixon administration’s Watergate scandal — and Nixon’s subsequent attempts to destroy tapes and other evidence — that it needed to act to prevent similar behavior.

“Fortunately, the country has not had another Watergate scandal since President Nixon, which suggests that the sunshine disinfectant of the Records Act is working as intended,” Bates wrote.

On April 1, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum finding the law unconstitutional, arguing it exceeded Congress’ powers and intruded on the powers of the president, according to court records. The day after that, White House Counsel David Warrington issued a memorandum to White House staff laying out that they no longer had to comply with the law.

Shortly after that, the American Historical Association, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and others filed lawsuits seeking to block the change.

Bates held a hearing in the cases last week, where the government argued that even if Bates upheld the law the guidance actually complied with it.

Bates highlighted that texts and other instant messages on staffs’ personal phones may not be preserved in the new policy and could be lost to history.

Also, Bates noted that the guidance would not cover the president or vice president’s documents and that the guidance did not say whether it would comply with the normal process for destroying records, which involves consultations with the National Archives and Congress.