Records from Trump’s First Term Are Eligible for Public Release. Here’s Why That Matters.

Today, January 20, 2026, marks a milestone under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), as records from President Donald Trump’s first administration (2017-21) become eligible for public release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). For an administration that has repeatedly characterized itself and the president as the “most transparent” in history, today is a legal turning point that once again puts those claims to the test.

The PRA builds a structured disclosure process into federal law, including defined procedures for review, processing, release, and any permissible restrictions on access. That structure is what makes today matter: It marks the point at which the public’s right to seek these records becomes an active legal process.

Why this matters

Which records are covered

The PRA defines presidential records broadly, covering materials created or received by the president, the president’s immediate staff, and parts of the Executive Office of the President in the course of conducting official duties. The law covers the records of, for example, the Office of the Vice President, the National Security Council, National Economic Council, and the Domestic Policy Council.

These records may show how decisions were made, how policies were developed and implemented, and how the White House communicated internally and with outside individuals. They include emails, texts, memos, briefing materials, and other written or electronic communications.

What records could reveal

Records from Trump’s first administration could expose decision-making related to some of the most consequential actions of that presidency, including:

• Trump’s immigration policies
• Pandemic mismanagement
• Attempts to subvert the 2020 election
• Efforts to politicize the Department of Justice (DOJ)

These documents remain essential to understanding how presidential power was actually exercised — not just how it was described publicly — and provide additional context for current, similar actions.

Why it matters now

The stakes are high given the continuity between Trump’s first and second administrations. Many key officials from Trump’s first term have returned, some in positions of heightened influence and authority, making the records from that administration critical to understanding how decisions are being shaped today. For example, figures such as Stephen Miller, Dan Scavino, and Brooke Rollins played central roles in the first Trump White House and remain part of the constellation of actors influencing the current administration. In other words, the same people who made catastrophic decisions in Trump 1.0 are making decisions now.

Presumption of public disclosure

The PRA was enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal to establish the principle that presidential records belong to the American people, not a president. The law establishes a presumption that most presidential records should be publicly released.

Following a presidential term, the archivist of the United States assumes responsibility for the custody and access to the records. The archivist has “an affirmative duty” to “make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible” consistent with the law. The Federal Records Act requires that the archivist be independent, appointed “without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties” of the office.

Statutory restrictions potentially barring disclosure

Before leaving office, the president can restrict records from disclosure for up to 12 years if information falls within six categories, such as properly classified national security, confidential advice, or unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Five years after a president leaves office, records become eligible for public release unless disclosure is restricted under one of the six statutory exceptions, in which case the records become available when either the former president chooses to lift the restriction or the restricted period has expired.

Constitutional privileges potentially barring disclosure

If the archivist proposes a record be released in response to a FOIA request, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) notifies the designated representative of the former president, the Office of White House Counsel (OWHC), and the attorney general, through the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The archivist is required to release the record if, after a 60-day review period, or up to 90 days if an extension is requested, the current or former presidents have not asserted a constitutional privilege (which is distinct from the six statutory restrictions). The decision to assert privilege against disclosure of a record must be made personally by either the current or former president with notice to the archivist and Congress. The legislative history from both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate describe the intent of the time limits for claiming a privilege as providing for “timely release.”

Burden is on the president

Twelve years after a president’s term in office, there is a presumption of disclosure when information is requested under FOIA, and the six PRA restrictions no longer apply. The burden is on the former or the current president to either assert executive privilege or records must be publicly disclosed under FOIA.

Role of designated representatives

Former presidents have the authority to designate a representative to act on their behalf, exercising the president’s authority regarding the release of presidential records. NARA describes the role as “valuable.” Representatives exercise significant discretion serving “as liaisons with NARA in reviewing access requests” and deciding whether documents should be publicly released. NARA’s regulations explain that representatives “may assert constitutionally-based privileges” on behalf of the former president “that would prevent NARA from releasing some or all or the information requested.”

The OWHC and DOJ’s OLC also review records identified by the archivist for disclosure. OLC confers with the OWHC and determines whether to invoke executive privilege or uphold a claim of privilege by a former president.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as PRA representative

Trump named his then-personal attorney Todd Blanche as one of his two designated representatives in 2023, while Blanche was representing Trump in his criminal cases. During his Senate confirmation hearing last February for deputy attorney general, Blanche affirmed that his prior role as Trump’s criminal defense attorney means he has a “continuing duty” to Trump, not only of confidentiality, but also of loyalty. Given this conflict, last week American Oversight called on Blanche to remove himself from any role overseeing access to Trump’s first term presidential records.

Trump himself will not overrule his own assertions of executive privilege so also having Blanche serving as both Trump’s designated representative and the deputy attorney general calls into question whether the DOJ will serve as simply a rubber stamp on Trump’s claims of executive privilege. This conflict risks Trump’s personal interests being placed above the interest of the public in accessing Trump’s first-term administration records.

Trump could delay or withhold records

Trump could delay or withhold records using a number of tactics. He could assert a constitutional privilege to try to withhold large categories of records. Trump showed his willingness to use a claim of executive privilege to try to avoid accountability when he attempted to block Congress from obtaining access to his records related to the January 6 insurrection. When President Joe Biden refused to uphold Trump’s claim, it took a Supreme Court ruling to force Trump to turn over the records.

The PRA provides guardrails to ensure the law is followed by requiring the archivist to administer the process rather than the White House. There is currently, however, no confirmed archivist following Trump’s removal of Colleen Shogan in February 2025 – reportedly stemming from his longstanding grievance with the agency over its enforcement of the PRA and its 2022 request that the DOJ investigate Trump’s handling of White House records. Trump instead installed Secretary of State Marco Rubio as the acting archivist. Rubio serving as the acting archivist raises serious concerns about whether documents will be independently reviewed for release.

There may also be substantial delays in NARA’s processing of requests. On the website for the Trump library, NARA states, “the FOIA process takes time.” It isn’t clear what restrictions Trump placed on records from his first term, or what will be available now that the five-year mark has arrived, and NARA may use FOIA exemptions to try to withhold or redact documents.

Trump’s record of blocking records of public importance

Trump has a pattern of trying to avoid transparency of his records. Last December, Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee, where he revealed that his investigation produced “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Trump unlawfully attempted to overturn the 2020 election and had uncovered “powerful evidence” that the president willfully retained highly classified documents after leaving office and “repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.”

As Trump’s criminal defense attorney, Blanche helped the then-former president fight to keep Smith’s report on the Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation from becoming public, following NARA’s efforts to recover presidential records that should have otherwise been appropriately transferred under the PRA.

The PRA prohibits access to presidential records by representatives who have been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records. This prohibition does not apply to presidents but highlights the concerns that come with Trump’s pattern of disregarding records and transparency laws.

What past practice shows

President Barack Obama has released tens of thousands of pages since the presidential records from his administration became subject to FOIA in 2022. The Obama Library makes some releases available on its website, such as emails, briefing materials, and photographs. Obama lifted restrictions on some categories of records, including “confidential communications” and “material related to appointments to federal office” to allow for their public release five years after the end of his administration. NARA posted the first notice of intent to release records in June 2022.

Obama’s approach is also one of the first real tests of the modern PRA. In 2014, Congress strengthened the law to make it harder for presidents to delay or block the release of their records and to require faster public access. Those changes came after years of stonewalling over the release of Reagan-era records during President George W. Bush’s term. That means there is limited modern precedent: Obama, Trump’s first term, Biden (whose records are not yet eligible for release), and now Trump’s return.

Exercising your rights under the PRA

Journalists, watchdog organizations, and everyday Americans have the right to seek presidential records through FOIA, subject only to the limited, clearly defined restrictions Congress wrote into law. FOIA is the mechanism Congress established to ensure the public can obtain these records and understand how presidential power was exercised. FOIA requests can be submitted to NARA’s website for the Trump Library.

FOIA makes it possible to evaluate whether the PRA disclosure process is being followed. Requesters are entitled to know what categories of records are being withheld, the legal basis for those withholdings, and whether any restrictions are being used to keep broad swaths of the public record out of view. Tracking those decisions is essential to determining whether the PRA’s disclosure framework is operating as intended.

Today marks the beginning of a new phase of public accountability. From this point forward, the question is whether the Trump administration and the institutions charged with preserving and releasing presidential records will carry out the PRA’s disclosure process in good faith.

Sustained oversight is essential to the level of transparency the American people deserve. The PRA provides an important tool to seek answers about how presidential power was exercised. Accountability depends on enforcing that law — through aggressive public records work, persistent scrutiny of withholding decisions, and continued pressure for lawful disclosure.