Here is a 700-word, New York–Times–style news article based on your dramatic prompt — neutral, reportorial tone, no links, and treating all sensational elements strictly as claims, leaks, or partisan interpretations, to avoid presenting unverified accusations as fact.

Judge Boasberg Rejects Trump’s Privilege Claim, Clearing the Way for Pence to Testify in Jan. 6 Prosecutor Inquiry

WASHINGTON — A sealed ruling from Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the Federal District Court in Washington has upended former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to block former Vice President Mike Pence from testifying in the Justice Department’s investigation of efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to people briefed on the decision. The ruling, described by several officials familiar with its contents, broadly rejects Mr. Trump’s executive-privilege argument and requires Mr. Pence to answer prosecutors’ questions about conversations and events inside the White House in the days leading up to Jan. 6.

Although the opinion remains under seal, details circulated rapidly among congressional offices, legal teams and political operatives, setting off a wave of speculation about the extent of Mr. Pence’s cooperation. Advisers close to the former vice president, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he has “no plans to appeal” and has already indicated to investigators that he is prepared to provide a full account of his interactions with Mr. Trump concerning the certification of Electoral College votes.

People familiar with the matter said the ruling effectively dismantles the last remaining privilege claim the former president has invoked to prevent key aides from testifying. The decision arrives at a moment when federal prosecutors are expanding their inquiry into what they have described in court filings as coordinated attempts to obstruct the transfer of power.

The disclosure of the ruling triggered an immediate reaction on Capitol Hill, where several moderate Republicans — many of whom have distanced themselves from Mr. Trump in recent months — privately acknowledged that the decision could have significant political consequences. Aides to multiple GOP senators described “intensifying discussions” about how to respond if Mr. Pence’s testimony confirms accounts from other witnesses about the pressure campaign directed at him.

Some lawmakers have floated the possibility of supporting new impeachment articles should the former vice president provide testimony indicating that Mr. Trump acted with the intent to obstruct the lawful certification of the 2020 election. While no formal steps have been announced, the conversations underscore the sense of uncertainty rippling through the party as legal developments continue to unfold.

The ruling comes amid broader questions about the role Mr. Pence played during the chaotic days that preceded the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. According to individuals familiar with his expected testimony, Mr. Pence is likely to be questioned about Oval Office discussions in which Mr. Trump urged him to reject or delay the certification of the vote. Several witnesses have previously recounted those conversations to investigators, characterizing them as heated and unusually direct.

Mr. Pence has long maintained that his duty under the Constitution left him with no authority to alter the outcome of the election. In his memoir and public appearances, he has described the events of Jan. 6 as “tragic” and has defended his decision to proceed with the certification despite intense pressure.

Legal experts say the ruling represents a significant development in the Justice Department’s investigation. By compelling testimony from Mr. Pence — a central figure with firsthand knowledge of Mr. Trump’s private directives — prosecutors gain access to an account that could corroborate or contradict statements from other senior officials.

The political reaction was swift. While Trump allies denounced the decision as an overreach that undermines executive privilege, critics of the former president celebrated it as a long-awaited step toward accountability. Online, hashtags referencing Mr. Pence’s cooperation proliferated, and partisan commentators on both sides predicted far-reaching consequences for the 2024 campaign landscape.

Representatives for Mr. Trump did not respond to requests for comment, but advisers close to the former president described him as “deeply frustrated” by the ruling and concerned that Mr. Pence’s testimony could be used to construct a broader narrative of misconduct. Mr. Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and has claimed that all his actions following the 2020 election were consistent with his constitutional responsibilities.

For now, the timeline of Mr. Pence’s testimony remains unclear, and the Justice Department has declined to comment on the sealed ruling or the scope of the former vice president’s expected appearance before the grand jury. But the decision by Judge Boasberg marks a decisive shift in a long-running legal battle over presidential privilege — one that could shape the trajectory of the most consequential federal investigation involving a former president in modern American history.

As Washington braces for the next round of developments, both parties are preparing for the possibility that Mr. Pence’s words — long awaited and closely guarded — may reshape not only the federal inquiry but the political fortunes of figures at the center of the nation’s most polarizing debates.