DOJ Is Suing Melania Trump's Ex-Friend Over Her Book, Despite Never Being A Government Employee

from the why-are-taxpayer-dollars-being-spent-on-this dept

On Tuesday, the Justice Department sued Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former close friend of the First Lady, Melania Trump, who recently published a book about her relationship with Melania, including revealing phone conversations that Wolkoff had recorded.

It seems important to note a few things: the First Lady is not an employees of the US government. Also, while Stephanie Winston Wolkoff was an "aide" to Melania Trump, it was an uncompensated volunteer role, and not as an employee. However, for reasons that remain unclear to me, Wolkoff still signed a ridiculously broad "Gratuitous Services Agreement" with the White House. It is, in fact, gratuitous. Of course, if she's not getting paid, you might wonder what is the "consideration" for the contract to be considered valid. According to the contract it is the following:

"being allowed access to the White House."

And what does she give up for "being allowed access to the White House"? Well, a ton. But the key thing for the sake of this lawsuit is her apparent ability to talk about anything. The agreement contains a ridiculously broad non-disclosure agreement (NDA):

I understand that I may have access to nonpublic, privileged and/or confidential information in the course of performing my gratuitous services. I hereby agree that I will protect from inadvertent or intentional release or unauthorized disclosure any and all information furnished to me by the Government under this Agreement, information about the First Family, or other information about which I may become aware during the course of performance. I acknowledge that I am specifically prohibited from publishing, reproducing or otherwise divulging any such information to any unauthorized person or entity in whole or in part. I further acknowledge that, while this information is in my possession, I shall take all reasonable measures to protect it from unauthorized disclosure and to restrict access to those who have a bona fide requirement for such access. Requests included within this paragraph include, but are not limited to, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Congressional requests, and litigation-related requests. I will direct all questions around the sensitivity of any such information or any other issue concerning disclosure of information to the Office of White House Counsel. These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter my obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information (2) communications to Congress (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.

That's a mouthful. However, a few notable points: there is no end-date on this. Most NDAs I've seen last for a defined period (often five years). Also, most NDAs I've seen have clauses that remove the restrictions if the content becomes public through other means. Either way, it's insanely broad especially for a volunteer role to basically be "official friend" to someone who is not even a government employee themselves.

For a few years now there has been quite a lot of controversy over the White House forcing employees to sign NDAs. Experts have generally said such NDAs are unconstitutional. There are some governmental NDAs that are legit, but they tend to be limited to situations involving classified information. Beyond that, though, no dice. In McGeHee v. Casey, the DC Circuit made this pretty clear:

The government has no legitimate interest in censoring unclassified materials.

Or in the US v. Marchetti in the 4th Circuit, in a case about a CIA agent publishing a book:

We readily agree with Marchetti that the First Amendment limits the extent to which the United States, contractually or otherwise, may impose secrecy requirements upon its employees and enforce them with a system of prior censorship. It precludes such restraints with respect to information which is unclassified...

And the case here is even more ridiculous, given that we're talking about someone who was a volunteer for the spouse of a government employee, rather than a government employee directly.

That the DOJ thinks this is a legitimate lawsuit to file again shows just how corrupt this Justice Department has become. There is no legitimate basis for bringing such a lawsuit. It serves no purpose other than to intimidate others writing such "tell all" books about their time in or around the White House. It's the US government filing a massive SLAPP suit to suppress speech, and is an affront to the 1st Amendment.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, doj, free speech, intimidation, melania trump, stephanie winston wolkoff, volunteer