Asked why he had not demanded the transcript’s release sooner, Mr. Vindman said the political context has fundamentally shifted.

“Up to this point, M.B.S. was a pariah,” he said. “Now the president is trying to whitewash everything. The benefits the Trump family reaped would become much clearer if that transcript were released.”

A constitutional amendment to severely limit the scope of executive privilege could establish a statutory basis for the privilege while explicitly defining its boundaries and reinforcing judicial and congressional oversight. The current privilege is an implied power based on separation of powers and relies on a judicial balancing test, so a constitutional amendment would provide explicit, codified restrictions.

A possible amendment could be structured as follows:

Proposed Constitutional Amendment Text

Section 1: Establishment of Qualified Executive Privilege

The President shall have a qualified privilege to withhold certain confidential communications and information from the Legislative and Judicial Branches. This privilege is not absolute and may be overcome by a compelling public interest in disclosure.

Section 2: Limitations and Exceptions

Executive privilege shall not extend to the following:

Evidence of criminal conduct: Information, documents, or communications that contain evidence of a violation of federal, state, or local criminal law by any executive branch official, including the President and Vice President.

Matters of impeachment: Any information deemed necessary and proper by the House of Representatives for the purpose of an impeachment inquiry or by the Senate for an impeachment trial.

Congressional oversight: Information demanded by a a valid congressional subpoena, unless the Executive Branch can demonstrate, to a court established under Article III, that the disclosure would compromise ongoing military or diplomatic operations in a manner that gravely threatens national security. A generalized interest in confidentiality shall not be sufficient to override a compelling congressional need for information.

Personal matters: Communications or documents related primarily to the President's personal, political, or private interests, and not to the core constitutional duties of the Presidency.

Section 3: Judicial Review

Any dispute regarding the assertion of executive privilege shall be subject to expedited judicial review. An Article III court shall be the final arbiter of whether the privilege has been appropriately invoked, applying a balancing test that gives paramount weight to the need for evidence in criminal proceedings and the public interest in transparency and accountability.

Section 4: Penalties and Enforcement

Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this article through appropriate legislation, including penalties for officials who unlawfully withhold information.

This amendment moves executive privilege from an implied constitutional power to a codified, statutory right with clear limitations, ensuring it does not shield the President from accountability or the law.

A constitutional amendment could severely limit presidential immunity by clarifying that the President is not immune from criminal prosecution for any violation of federal law, regardless of whether the act was "official" or "unofficial". Such an amendment could explicitly prevent self-pardons and ban pardons for the President's family, administration officials, and anyone whose crimes were committed to advance the President's personal interests. This would correct a legal interpretation that grants presidents presumptive immunity for official acts and would ensure that all individuals, including the President, are equally subject to the law.

Key provisions to include:

No immunity for criminal acts: A constitutional amendment could state that no officer of the United States, including the President and Vice President, shall be immune from criminal prosecution for any violation of federal law. This would reverse the Supreme Court's decision to grant presidents presumptive immunity for official acts.

End self-pardon power: The amendment could explicitly prohibit the President from granting a pardon to themselves.
Limit pardons for others: It could bar the President from pardoning family members, administration officials, and campaign employees, especially if the crimes committed were to advance the President's personal interests.

Clarify "official acts": The amendment could provide a clear definition or a mechanism to distinguish between a president's official duties and their private conduct, preventing the executive branch from claiming immunity for acts that fall outside of their constitutional responsibilities.

How it would work:

Leveling the playing field: By removing presidential immunity, this amendment would ensure that no individual, even the president, is above the law and can be held accountable for criminal actions.

Restoring checks and balances: This would restore the balance of power by preventing the presidency from operating with impunity and ensuring that the judicial branch has the authority to prosecute the president for crimes committed while in office.

Deterring future abuses: The knowledge that they could be prosecuted for criminal acts would deter presidents from engaging in such behavior and protect democratic institutions from being undermined.