Overview
David A. Warrington served as counsel to President Trump before Will Scharf took over the position in 2026. The original April 2 court-filed memorandum identifies him as Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President.
Records-law decision sequence
The April 2, 2026 memorandum states that the Office of White House Counsel asked the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel to examine the constitutionality of the Presidential Records Act. After DOJ issued an opinion declaring the law unconstitutional, Warrington released revised retention guidance. That guidance included preservation instructions for paper and electronic materials and a narrower rule for retaining text messages.
Court intervention
On May 20, 2026, Judge John D. Bates issued a preliminary injunction requiring specified Executive Office and White House defendants to maintain records in compliance with the Presidential Records Act. The court's June 30 pause of further proceedings did not suspend the preliminary injunction.
Earlier ethics paperwork
The White House publicly released ethics waivers relating to David Sacks signed or issued by Warrington in 2025. Such formal documentation identifies authority and timing; it does not establish any connection to the 2026 records-law opinion beyond Warrington's office.
Evidence limits
The original memo confirms a request for legal analysis and issued policy guidance. It does not establish that Warrington personally deleted government records, coordinated the November warnings to lawmakers, or knew how any specific donor communication was handled.
May 25, 2026 White House compliance notice
In a May 28 federal court exhibit, the White House filed a May 25 email signed by Warrington telling EOP staff that his April 2 records memorandum did not apply while the court injunction required compliance with the Presidential Records Act. The email instructed staff to preserve qualifying records on personal devices and copy them to official accounts. It is documentary evidence of an instruction to comply, not independent proof that every staff member complied.
Sources
Positions, source-reported statements, and court orders are distinguished from allegations. Inclusion is not a finding of wrongdoing.