Published on: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 00:03:00 GMT
Original Story: Trump names Will Scharf as new White House counsel – Politico

Trump’s New Lawyer: Loyalty Over Legality, Folks.

Well, would you look at that? Just when you thought the carousel of political appointments couldn’t get any more… predictable, we have news. Politico, bless their tireless hearts, reports that Donald Trump has tapped Will Scharf to be his White House counsel, should he, you know, actually win. And honestly, for those of us who’ve been slogging through the corporate cubicle farm of political commentary for what feels like centuries, this announcement is less a surprise and more a gentle, existential sigh. Because, of course.

This isn’t just about finding a good lawyer, bless their hearts. This is about finding the right lawyer. And by “right,” we mean someone who understands the unique, shall we say, nuances of a second Trump administration. It’s not about upholding some dusty, archaic notion of the rule of law for the sake of the institution. Oh no, honey. It’s about ensuring the executive branch operates as a seamless extension of one man’s will, with a legal team ready to run interference, push boundaries, and perhaps, occasionally, tell a judge to “hold my beer.”

Who Exactly is Will Scharf? And Why Should We Care?

For the uninitiated, Will Scharf isn’t exactly a household name, unless your household spends its evenings doom-scrolling legal Twitter. He’s a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (check), a veteran of the Missouri Attorney General’s office (double check for conservative cred), and, crucially, a staunch Trump loyalist (ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!). He’s currently running for Missouri AG himself, because apparently, one potential high-profile legal gig isn’t enough. Ambition, folks, it’s a hell of a drug.

Scharf’s resume reads like a checklist for a certain kind of political operative: he’s been actively involved in legal challenges against the Biden administration, and perhaps most tellingly, he’s been a vocal advocate for January 6th defendants, describing them as “political prisoners.” Now, whether you agree with that assessment or not is beside the point. The point is, this isn’t a pick designed to project an image of sober, institutionalist legal guidance. This is a pick designed to project an image of an aggressive, unyielding legal warrior, ready to do battle for his principal.

The White House Counsel: Defender of the Office, or the Man?

Traditionally, the White House counsel’s job is a delicate dance. They advise the President on legal matters, ethical compliance, and, critically, they are meant to protect the legal interests of the *office of the presidency* and the *executive branch* as an institution. They’re the legal firewall, the folks who say, “Uh, sir, with all due respect, that might be a problem.” Or at least, they used to be.

Under a potential second Trump term, however, that job description seems poised for a dramatic rewrite. We’re not talking about minor tweaks; we’re talking about a full-on genre change. The role shifts from being a guardian of legal norms to, arguably, a facilitator of executive power, no matter how aggressively it’s wielded. It’s less about preventing trouble and more about, well, managing it after the fact, or perhaps even proactively creating it to achieve a desired outcome. Think of it as a legal pit crew for a race car that’s perpetually on fire.

The Loyalty Test: A Tale As Old As… Well, 2017.

Now, this brings us to a familiar refrain: the loyalty test. For anyone who’s been paying attention, especially during Trump’s first go-round, the overriding criterion for high-level appointments wasn’t necessarily legal brilliance or even deep policy expertise. It was, and remains, an unwavering fealty to Donald J. Trump himself. And Scharf, by all accounts, has passed this test with flying colors, acing the advanced placement level with extra credit for publicly questioning election integrity and defending January 6th participants.

Lest we forget, this wasn’t always the *explicit*, front-and-center requirement. During his 2016 campaign and early transition, Trump often boasted about bringing in “the best people,” “the smartest people,” and “successful business minds” from outside the traditional political class. He’d talk about appointing individuals who had “made a fortune” and were thus independent and capable of “negotiating for our country.” The implication was that competence and a track record of success were the primary drivers, irrespective of a deep, personal history of loyalty to him.

Take, for instance, his first White House Counsel, Don McGahn. Appointed in 2017, McGahn was a seasoned conservative lawyer, a former FEC chairman, and highly respected within Republican legal circles. He wasn’t a long-term personal confidant of Trump’s in the way that, say, Rudy Giuliani became. McGahn, despite his conservative bona fides, famously threatened to resign rather than carry out Trump’s order to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2017. He saw his duty as protecting the institution of the presidency and adhering to legal norms, even if it meant directly defying the President’s personal wishes. That, my friends, was an institutionalist playing by the old rules. Trump, as we know, was absolutely *livid* about it, later publicly excoriating McGahn for allegedly “leaking” to Mueller’s team and for not being “loyal.”

Fast forward to Scharf. His background and public statements suggest a White House counsel who will be far less inclined to pull a “McGahn.” The lesson from the first administration has clearly been learned by the incoming staff: the only way to survive, and indeed thrive, is to be 110% on board with the program, legal niceties be damned. The shift is palpable: from a counsel who might push back on legal grounds to one whose legal interpretations are pre-aligned with the President’s expansive view of executive power. It’s a fundamental redefinition of the role, where the “client” is not the office, but the man, and the “law” is whatever is politically convenient at the moment.

Project 2025: Legal Facilitation for Administrative Overhaul

This appointment, like so many others currently being floated, slots neatly into the grand plans outlined by Project 2025. For those blissfully unaware, Project 2025 is the sprawling, detailed roadmap crafted by the Heritage Foundation and various conservative allies to prepare for a conservative presidential transition. And a big, big chunk of that roadmap is about “Dismantling the Bureaucracy.”

How does a White House counsel play into this? By providing the legal scaffolding – or perhaps, the legal sledgehammer – for a radical overhaul of the administrative state. Scharf’s role would be to greenlight aggressive executive actions, challenge existing regulations, reinterpret statutory authorities to expand presidential power, and generally grease the wheels for a swift and decisive implementation of the Project 2025 agenda. We’re talking about a legal office dedicated not to caution and compliance, but to aggressive enablement. It’s less about avoiding legal challenges and more about winning them, or at least running out the clock until the next election cycle.

The entire federal apparatus, from independent agencies to the civil service, is in the crosshairs. And to achieve that, you don’t need a lawyer who’s going to hem and haw about precedent or constitutional limits. You need someone who views those as mere suggestions, or obstacles to be creatively circumvented. You need a loyalist who understands the mission and is prepared to use every legal tool in the box – and perhaps invent a few new ones – to achieve it. Scharf, by all appearances, is that guy.