President Trump’s presidency is marked by expanded unilateral executive powers, including aggressively pushing the boundaries of executive privilege. We address whether Trump’s first term use of executive privilege actually marks a break from historical norms or represents a continuation of presidential practices well-established by his predecessors. We do so by examining the four executive privilege disputes that defined this period: (1) the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election; (2) the proposed addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census; (3) concerns over the White House security clearance process; and (4) the refusal to release a Commerce Department report on proposed auto tariffs. The analysis extends to Trump’s post-presidency legal battles, including the classified documents case at Mar-a-Lago and investigations related to the January 6th Capitol attack.

Previous work suggests that the American public’s distaste for unilateralism is fixed and constrains the president’s use of these powers. However, the presidency comes with a “bully pulpit” from which the president tries to mold opinion. If presidents are responsive to public opinion and try to shape it, how do they incorporate unilateralism into their public relations strategies? I argue that presidents can combine their role with their unilateral authority by using executive orders as bureaucratic directives and strategic public relations tools. Drawing on archival data from the Clinton Presidential Library, the article focuses on the administration’s minority business executive order (EO 12928) and examines behind-the-scenes considerations that shaped how and when the executive order was publicized. I find evidence that publicity decisions were shaped by agency preferences, political constituencies, and alignment with legislative initiatives. The case study lays the groundwork for scholars to build a general theory explaining executive order publicity.