Last updated 1 month ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Executive privilege is the asserted power of the President of the United States, along with other high-level officials in the executive branch, to withhold certain confidential communications and documents from the legislative and judicial branches of government (and the public).
It is a form of presidential discretion, not an absolute right, and is most often justified by the need to protect national security or to ensure that the president can receive candid, unvarnished advice from advisors without fear of public disclosure.
This power allows the President to refuse to disclose information or to prevent aides from testifying before Congress or in court proceedings.
A Modern Name for an Old Power
The very name of this power is a surprisingly modern invention. While the concept of a president withholding information dates back to the nation’s founding, the formal term “executive privilege” was only coined in the 1950s during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
This linguistic shift is more than a historical footnote; it represents a critical evolution in the executive branch’s conception of its own authority. Before the 1950s, presidents like George Washington might simply refuse a congressional request on a case-by-case basis, framing it as a specific action necessary for the public good.
The Eisenhower administration’s use of a formal name, however, transformed these ad-hoc refusals into the assertion of a coherent, named right. This formalization occurred as the presidency contended with the new pressures of the Cold War national security state and increasingly aggressive congressional oversight, epitomized by the Army-McCarthy hearings.
By naming the power, the executive branch institutionalized its claim to secrecy, giving it a veneer of legal formality that fundamentally altered the terms of debate with the other branches of government.
Ultimately, the entire legal and historical framework of executive privilege is built upon the foundational American doctrine of the separation of powers. The Constitution divides the federal government into three co-equal branches—the legislative (Congress), the executive (the President), and the judicial (the courts)—each with its own distinct powers and responsibilities.
Executive privilege is defended as a necessary shield for the executive branch, allowing it to function independently and effectively, free from what it might consider undue intrusion or politically motivated harassment by Congress or the courts.
The Constitutional Tightrope: Origins and Legal Foundations
The concept of executive privilege did not emerge from a vacuum. Its roots run deep into the legal and political traditions that the American founders both inherited and rejected, and its justification rests on a careful reading of the Constitution’s structure rather than its explicit text.
From Royal Prerogative to Presidential Power
The idea that a nation’s executive needs a degree of secrecy to function effectively predates the United States itself. The historical lineage of executive privilege can be traced back to English common law, specifically to the concepts of “royal prerogative” and “privilege of Parliament.”
The royal prerogative granted the monarch wide-ranging discretionary powers, including the ability to act in secret on matters of state, particularly in foreign affairs and national defense. Similarly, Parliament held privileges to protect the integrity of its own internal debates and proceedings.
When the American founders designed a new form of government, they were deeply skeptical of monarchical power and deliberately created a presidency with limited, enumerated authorities. However, they also recognized the practical need for an energetic and effective executive. In adapting these English concepts for a republic, they implicitly carried over the understanding that the head of the executive branch would require some ability to maintain confidentiality to govern, especially in the realms of diplomacy and national security.
An Unwritten but Implied Power
The primary source of controversy surrounding executive privilege is its absence from the constitutional text. The Constitution is entirely silent on whether the president has the power to withhold information from Congress or the courts. This has led some constitutional scholars, most notably Raoul Berger, to argue forcefully that executive privilege is a “constitutional myth”—a power created out of thin air by presidents to suit their political needs, with no legitimate basis in the nation’s founding document.
Despite this textual absence, presidents and the courts have consistently argued that the privilege is an implied power, derived from the structure of the Constitution itself. The legal foundation for this claim rests on two pillars:
Article II Vesting Clause: Article II begins with the declaration that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Proponents of the privilege argue that this clause grants the president a broad swath of inherent powers necessary to perform the duties of the office, and that the ability to maintain confidentiality is an essential component of that executive power.
The Separation of Powers: The core defense of executive privilege is rooted in the doctrine of the separation of powers. The argument is that for the three branches of government to be truly co-equal and independent, no single branch can be allowed to completely dominate the others. If Congress or the courts could compel the disclosure of any and all executive branch communications at will, it would effectively subordinate the presidency, crippling its ability to function.
The privilege, therefore, is seen as a defensive mechanism that allows the executive branch to protect its autonomy and prevent undue interference from the other branches.
The Core Justifications
Over time, these structural arguments have been refined into three primary justifications that presidents invoke when asserting executive privilege:
Ensuring Candid Advice (The Presidential Communications Privilege): This is the most common and widely recognized justification for executive privilege. The core argument is that effective presidential decision-making depends on the quality of advice the president receives. For that advice to be of high quality, advisors must feel free to be completely frank, to explore all options—even unpopular or politically risky ones—and to debate issues vigorously without the chilling effect of potential public disclosure.
As the Supreme Court eloquently stated in United States v. Nixon, “Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision-making process.”
Protecting National Security and Diplomatic Secrets (The State Secrets Privilege): This is broadly considered the strongest and least controversial basis for an assertion of executive privilege. The president, as Commander-in-Chief and the nation’s chief diplomat, is privy to highly sensitive information regarding military operations, intelligence sources and methods, and delicate diplomatic negotiations. The disclosure of such information could endanger American lives, compromise national security, or undermine the country’s foreign policy objectives.
Shielding Ongoing Law Enforcement Investigations: The executive branch, through the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies, is responsible for investigating and prosecuting federal crimes. Presidents have argued that they must have the ability to protect the confidentiality of ongoing investigations. Disclosing information about a pending case could tip off suspects, compromise the safety of confidential informants or undercover agents, reveal investigative techniques, or prejudice a potential jury pool.
These justifications reveal a deep and unavoidable tension at the heart of American democracy. The arguments for executive privilege are rooted in the practical needs of effective governance: better decisions through candid advice, a safer nation through secrecy, and more effective justice through confidentiality. Conversely, the arguments against an expansive privilege are rooted in the core principles of democratic accountability: Congress requires information to conduct oversight and prevent corruption, the courts require evidence to ensure justice, and the public has a right to know what its government is doing.
The Pillars of Precedent: Landmark Supreme Court Cases
For most of American history, executive privilege was an undefined power, asserted by presidents and contested by Congress in a political tug-of-war with no clear rules. It was not until the mid-20th century that the Supreme Court stepped in to provide a legal framework, issuing a series of landmark decisions that both legitimized the privilege and placed crucial limits on its use.
United States v. Nixon (1974): The Privilege is Real, but Not Absolute
The single most important case in the history of executive privilege is United States v. Nixon, a decision that arose from the ashes of the Watergate scandal and fundamentally reshaped the American presidency.
Context: The Watergate Tapes
The case began with a 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex. The ensuing investigation slowly unraveled a wide-ranging conspiracy of political espionage and obstruction of justice that led directly to the White House.
A critical turning point came when it was revealed that President Richard Nixon had a secret taping system that recorded all of his conversations in the Oval Office. The Watergate Special Prosecutor believed these tapes contained direct evidence of the president’s involvement in the cover-up and issued a subpoena demanding their release.
Nixon refused to comply, making the most expansive claim of executive privilege in American history. He argued that the privilege was absolute and that as president, he had the sole authority to decide what communications could be released. He contended that the dispute was an “intra-branch” matter within the executive branch and therefore not subject to judicial review.
The Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling
On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 8-0 decision (Justice William Rehnquist recused himself) that was both a victory for the institution of the presidency and a fatal blow to Richard Nixon himself. The ruling established three crucial principles:
The Privilege is Constitutional: In a major affirmation of presidential power, the Court for the first time explicitly recognized that executive privilege is a legitimate, constitutionally-based power. It is not merely a common-law tradition but is “inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution” and is necessary to protect the “valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them.”
The Privilege is Qualified, Not Absolute: This was the ruling’s most famous and consequential holding. The Court decisively rejected Nixon’s claim of an absolute privilege. It ruled that the privilege is qualified, meaning it must be balanced against other vital constitutional duties. A generalized interest in presidential confidentiality, the Court found, is not strong enough to overcome the “demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”
The Judiciary is the Arbiter: The Court firmly rebuffed Nixon’s argument that the executive branch could be the final judge of its own powers. Echoing the foundational 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Court declared that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
The Aftermath
The ruling was a direct order: Nixon had to turn over the tapes. He complied, and the recordings contained the “smoking gun”—a conversation proving he had personally ordered the FBI to halt its investigation of the Watergate break-in just days after it occurred. With his impeachment and removal from office now a certainty, President Nixon resigned just 16 days after the Supreme Court’s decision.
United States v. Reynolds (1953): Forging the State Secrets Privilege
While Nixon defined the privilege related to presidential communications, an earlier case, United States v. Reynolds, established the legal framework for its most powerful variant: the state secrets privilege.
Context: A Secret Military Mission
In 1948, a U.S. Air Force B-29 Superfortress crashed while on a mission to test secret electronic equipment. Several civilian engineers on board were killed, and their widows sued the government for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act. To prove their case, they sought the Air Force’s official accident report. The government refused to produce the report, formally invoking a privilege against revealing military secrets that it argued were essential to national security.
The Ruling’s Impact
The Supreme Court sided with the government, formally recognizing the “state secrets privilege” as a common-law evidentiary privilege. The Court established a balancing framework for how such claims should be handled. It affirmed that “judicial control over the evidence in a case cannot be abdicated to the caprice of executive officers,” meaning a court must independently assess the validity of the privilege claim.
However, it also ruled that a court should not compel disclosure of the information itself to make its determination if there is a “reasonable danger” that doing so would expose the very secrets the privilege is meant to protect.
The Reynolds case created a powerful tool for the executive branch to shield sensitive information. Decades later, when the accident report was finally declassified, it was revealed to contain no military secrets at all. Instead, it contained details of negligence and poor maintenance of the aircraft, information that was embarrassing to the Air Force but posed no threat to national security.
This revelation has fueled modern criticism that the state secrets privilege can be used as a shield not just for national security, but for government error and misconduct.
Clinton v. Jones (1997): Presidential Immunity and Its Limits
The case of Clinton v. Jones, while not a direct ruling on executive privilege, profoundly impacted the presidency by defining the boundaries of presidential immunity from the judicial process.
Context: A Lawsuit from the Past
Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a civil lawsuit against President Bill Clinton, alleging he had sexually harassed her in 1991 when he was governor of Arkansas. Clinton’s legal team argued for temporary presidential immunity, contending that a sitting president should be immune from civil lawsuits related to unofficial conduct that occurred before he took office.
The Ruling and Its Consequences
In another unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected this claim of temporary immunity. The Court ruled that the presidency does not confer a shield against civil litigation for purely private acts.
The decision had explosive and unforeseen consequences. By allowing the lawsuit to proceed, the Court opened the door for Jones’s lawyers to conduct discovery, which included deposing President Clinton under oath. During that deposition, they asked him about other relationships with government employees, specifically a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky.
Clinton’s testimony in the Jones case, in which he denied having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, became the basis for charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. This, in turn, led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his own controversial assertions of executive privilege to try to prevent his aides from testifying in the Lewinsky investigation.
A Tale of Presidencies: Executive Privilege Through History
Executive privilege is not a static legal doctrine; it is a dynamic political tool whose use has ebbed and flowed with the personalities of presidents and the pressures of their times. A journey through American history reveals how this unwritten power has been shaped, defined, and redefined in the crucible of political conflict.
The Founders’ Precedent: Asserting a Right, Practicing Accommodation
The precedent for executive privilege was set, like so many presidential powers, by George Washington. The first major test came in 1792, when the House of Representatives launched an investigation into the disastrous military defeat of General Arthur St. Clair at the hands of Native American tribes. The House requested all papers and records related to the campaign.
Washington convened his cabinet—including Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton—who unanimously concluded that the President had the authority to withhold information if he believed its disclosure would be injurious to the public good. Having established the principle, Washington then proceeded to provide Congress with the requested documents, setting a crucial early pattern: assert the right to secrecy, but practice a policy of accommodation and negotiation.
He took a firmer stand in 1796 over the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain. When the House demanded records related to the treaty negotiations, Washington flatly refused, arguing that since the Constitution gave the treaty-making power exclusively to the President and the Senate, the House had no legitimate role and therefore no right to the documents.
The Modern Coinage: Eisenhower and the McCarthy Era
For over 150 years, the power remained an unnamed, ad-hoc practice. That changed with President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was the first president to use the specific term “executive privilege.” The context for this formalization was the highly charged atmosphere of the Cold War and the aggressive anti-communist investigations of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
During the famous Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954, Eisenhower broadly invoked the privilege to prevent his aides and Defense Department officials from testifying about internal White House deliberations. He declared, “Any man who testifies as to the advice he gave me won’t be working for me that night.”
The Watergate Watershed: A Power Defined by Scandal
No president is more associated with executive privilege than Richard Nixon. His attempt to use the doctrine as an absolute shield to hide evidence of criminal activity during the Watergate scandal transformed it from an obscure constitutional concept into a household term synonymous with presidential cover-ups.
The scandal gave executive privilege, in the words of one scholar, “a bad name,” driving it underground for a period of time as subsequent presidents sought to distance themselves from Nixon’s legacy.
The Post-Watergate Era of Caution
The shadow of Watergate loomed large over Nixon’s successors. Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan invoked the privilege very sparingly, acutely aware of the political firestorm it could ignite. Most notably, President Reagan made the strategic decision not to invoke executive privilege to block testimony during the investigation into the Iran-Contra affair, a deliberate choice to avoid drawing parallels to Nixon’s obstructionist tactics during Watergate.
Modern Controversies and Expansion
Beginning in the 1990s, the post-Watergate caution began to fade, and presidents once again began to assert the privilege more frequently:
Bill Clinton: President Clinton invoked executive privilege more often than all of his post-Watergate predecessors combined. He asserted it multiple times during investigations into the Whitewater real estate deal and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
George W. Bush: The Bush administration adopted an expansive view of executive power, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. It asserted privilege to shield documents related to the controversial firing of U.S. attorneys and to block congressional access to information about Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force meetings.
Barack Obama: Upon taking office, President Obama reversed Bush’s executive order on presidential papers, signaling a commitment to greater transparency. However, the institutional pressures of the presidency soon led to his own high-profile assertion of the privilege. In 2012, during the congressional investigation into “Operation Fast and Furious,” President Obama invoked executive privilege to withhold Department of Justice documents from a House committee.
Donald Trump: President Trump made numerous and often novel assertions of executive privilege both during and after his presidency. He claimed a broad “protective” privilege to prevent former aides from testifying before Congress, arguing they had absolute immunity. After leaving office, he invoked the privilege in an attempt to block the National Archives from turning over his White House records to the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol attack.
Joe Biden: The conflict between the former and current president came to a head under President Joe Biden. He declined to support former President Trump’s privilege claims related to the January 6th investigation, waiving the privilege and allowing the National Archives to release the documents to Congress. However, in 2024, President Biden made his own assertion of executive privilege, blocking the release of audio tapes of his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur regarding his handling of classified documents.
Key Assertions of Executive Privilege in the Modern Era
| President | Year(s) | Context of Assertion | Type of Information Withheld | Stated Justification | Outcome/Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dwight D. Eisenhower | 1954 | Army-McCarthy Hearings | Testimony of aides & internal communications | Ensuring candid advice | Upheld; congressional request withdrawn |
| Richard M. Nixon | 1973-74 | Watergate Scandal | Oval Office tape recordings | Absolute privilege for presidential communications | Overruled by Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon; led to resignation |
| Bill Clinton | 1998 | Monica Lewinsky Investigation | Testimony of senior aides (Bruce Lindsey, Sidney Blumenthal) | Presidential communications privilege | Rejected by federal courts; privilege claim withdrawn on appeal |
| George W. Bush | 2007 | Firing of U.S. Attorneys | Testimony of Harriet Miers & Joshua Bolton | Absolute immunity for senior aides; candid advice | Rejected by federal court; led to contempt of Congress citations |
| Barack Obama | 2012 | “Operation Fast and Furious” Scandal | Department of Justice documents | Protecting ongoing law enforcement deliberations | Rejected by federal court; led to contempt of Congress citation for AG Holder |
| Donald J. Trump | 2019 | Mueller Report Investigation | Unredacted Mueller Report and underlying evidence | Protecting ongoing law enforcement deliberations | House held AG Barr in contempt; documents not released |
| Donald J. Trump | 2021-22 | January 6th Committee Investigation | White House records from his presidency (as former president) | Presidential communications privilege | Rejected by incumbent President Biden; rejection upheld by courts |
| Joe Biden | 2024 | Special Counsel Hur Investigation | Audio recordings of interview with Special Counsel | Protecting integrity of law enforcement investigation | House held AG Garland in contempt; dispute is ongoing |
The Anatomy of Secrecy: Understanding the Different Types of Privilege
The term “executive privilege” is often used as a monolithic catch-all, but in reality, it is an umbrella term for several distinct legal doctrines, each with its own source, scope, and strength. Understanding these different types is crucial for evaluating the legitimacy of any specific claim made by the executive branch.
Presidential Communications Privilege
This is the form of privilege most people think of when they hear the term. It is the strongest and most constitutionally significant of the doctrines.
Definition: The presidential communications privilege is rooted directly in the separation of powers and Article II of the Constitution. It protects the confidentiality of communications made directly by or to the President and their immediate, high-level White House advisors in the course of their official duties. The core purpose is to ensure the president receives candid and unvarnished advice, thereby protecting the integrity of the executive decision-making process.
Scope: This privilege is broad in that it covers deliberations on “quintessential and non-delegable Presidential power,” such as the power to nominate officials, grant pardons, or act as Commander-in-Chief. However, it is limited to the president and those in “operational proximity” to him, effectively meaning the White House and the Executive Office of the President. It is a qualified privilege, meaning it can be overcome if a court or congressional committee makes a sufficient showing that their need for the information is vital and outweighs the president’s interest in confidentiality.
Deliberative Process Privilege
This is a weaker and more common form of privilege that extends beyond the White House to the entire executive branch.
Definition: The deliberative process privilege is a common-law doctrine, not a constitutionally-based one. It protects the internal decision-making processes of government agencies by shielding documents that reflect advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations that are part of how an agency formulates its policies and decisions.
Scope and Limitations: The purpose of this privilege is to encourage open and frank discussion among agency officials and to prevent public confusion that might arise from disclosing proposals that were never adopted. Its protections are limited in two key ways. First, it only applies to material that is both pre-decisional and deliberative. Second, and most critically, courts have consistently held that this privilege is easily overcome and “disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred.”
State Secrets Privilege
This is the most potent and absolute form of executive privilege, designed to protect the nation’s most sensitive information.
Definition: The state secrets privilege is a common-law evidentiary rule that allows the U.S. government to prevent the disclosure of information in the course of litigation if there is a “reasonable danger” that the disclosure would harm national security. Unlike other privileges, which typically shield specific documents or testimony, a successful assertion of the state secrets privilege can lead to the dismissal of an entire lawsuit at its earliest stages.
Power and Controversy: Formally recognized in the 1953 Reynolds case, it has been described as the “most powerful secrecy privilege available to the president.” While originally intended to protect military and diplomatic secrets, its use expanded dramatically in the post-9/11 era. Critics argue that the privilege has been transformed from a narrow evidentiary rule into a broad immunity doctrine that allows the executive branch to shield potentially illegal activity from judicial review and public accountability.
Distinguishing Qualified vs. Absolute Privilege
Understanding the difference between “qualified” and “absolute” privilege is essential to understanding the entire debate.
Absolute Privilege: An absolute privilege is an impenetrable shield. It is a protection that always applies and cannot be overcome, regardless of the circumstances or the needs of the other party. Presidents, most notably Richard Nixon, have claimed an absolute privilege for their communications, but the courts have never recognized one.
Qualified Privilege: A qualified privilege requires a balancing test. It creates a presumption of confidentiality, but that presumption can be defeated. The party seeking the information bears the burden of demonstrating that its need for the information is specific, substantial, and essential to carrying out its own constitutional duties. A court must then weigh this demonstrated need against the executive’s interest in confidentiality. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the presidential communications privilege is, and has only ever been, a qualified one.
The Balancing Act: Legitimate Use or Illegitimate Abuse?
The debate over executive privilege is, at its core, a debate about the proper balance of power in American government. It is a perpetual constitutional conflict with high stakes for both presidential authority and democratic accountability.
The Inherent Conflict: Executive Secrecy vs. Congressional Oversight
The tension surrounding executive privilege is not a flaw in the constitutional system; it is a fundamental feature of it. The Constitution creates a system of separated powers with overlapping responsibilities, setting the branches on an inevitable collision course.
Article II grants the President the “executive Power,” which has been interpreted to include a need for confidentiality to govern effectively. At the same time, Article I grants Congress the power to make laws, which includes the implied and essential power to conduct oversight—to investigate how the executive branch is implementing those laws and to expose waste, fraud, and abuse.
When a president asserts executive privilege against a congressional subpoena, it represents a direct clash between these two legitimate constitutional functions.
Arguments for a Robust Privilege
Those who defend a strong interpretation of executive privilege argue that it is an indispensable tool for effective governance:
Effective Decision-Making: The president cannot receive the candid, unvarnished advice necessary for sound decision-making if advisors fear their every word will be scrutinized in public congressional hearings.
National Security: In foreign policy and military affairs, secrecy is not just a preference but a necessity. A president must be able to conduct sensitive negotiations and manage intelligence operations without the risk of premature disclosure.
Protection from Political Harassment: An unrestrained congressional power of inquiry could be weaponized for purely partisan purposes, bogging down the executive branch in endless, harassing investigations designed to score political points rather than conduct legitimate oversight.
Parity with Other Branches: The Supreme Court’s deliberations are among the most tightly held secrets in Washington, and congressional committees frequently meet in closed session. It is argued to be inconceivable that a power of secrecy so common to the other two branches would be uniquely denied to the executive.
Arguments Against an Expansive Privilege
Critics of executive privilege warn that an expansive interpretation poses a direct threat to democratic accountability:
A Shield for Wrongdoing: Secrecy can be, and has been, used to conceal not just legitimate deliberations but also incompetence, corruption, and outright criminal activity. The Watergate scandal remains the quintessential example.
Undermining Congressional Oversight: If the executive branch can unilaterally decide what information Congress gets to see, it effectively neuters Congress’s ability to perform its constitutional oversight function.
Lack of Constitutional Basis: The fact that the privilege is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution remains a powerful argument for its critics.
The “Chilling Effect” is Overstated: Some critics question whether the threat of disclosure truly “chills” candid advice, arguing that public servants should expect to be held accountable for their official advice.
Red Flags for Abuse: A Citizen’s Framework
For citizens seeking to evaluate claims of executive privilege, history provides a useful framework for distinguishing potentially legitimate assertions from likely abuses:
Concealing Personal or Political Misconduct: Claims made to hide information about scandals, campaign activities, or conduct unrelated to official duties are illegitimate.
Claims of “Absolute Immunity”: Assertions that current or former presidential aides are completely immune from being compelled to testify before Congress have been consistently rejected by the courts.
Late-Stage Assertions: When the privilege is invoked late in a congressional or criminal investigation, after other avenues have been exhausted, it can suggest an attempt to obstruct the inquiry rather than a principled stand.
Claims Over Non-Presidential Matters: The strongest form of privilege is narrowly limited to matters involving the president and his core constitutional duties. Claims asserted over routine agency matters are on much weaker legal ground.
Executive privilege remains one of the most contested powers in American government, a constitutional doctrine born from practical necessity but forever shadowed by the potential for abuse.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
