Asked more than a decade ago whether he had ever lied in public statements about his real-estate properties, Donald Trump gave a prophetic answer. “I’m no different from a politician running for office,” he said. “You always want to put the best foot forward.” For Trump, that casual relationship with facts has taken the form of more than 2,000 false or misleading claims since assuming the Oval Office, paired with a relentless campaign to delegitimize the press. It’s a strategy that has worked for Trump, up to a point. But it’s also a habit that the president’s legal team reportedly fears could be a major legal liability if and when Trump comes face to face with Robert Mueller.

On Monday, The New York Times reported that John Dowd, Trump’s lawyer in the Russia probe, and his deputy, Jay Sekulow, along with a number of West Wing advisers, think it would be unwise for Trump to speak with the special counsel about his campaign’s Russian ties and whether he obstructed justice. According to four people familiar with the discussions, Trump’s lawyers and advisers fear that the president could be charged with lying to investigators.

Refusing an interview with Mueller could have steep political costs. The rebuff would likely set off a wave of speculation about the president’s reluctance, and it also could prompt the special counsel to subpoena the president, which would then set off a court battle that could extend into midterm elections. But according to the Times, Dowd and Sekulow don’t believe that Mueller has the legal authority to subpoena the president. Marc Kasowitz, the president’s longtime personal lawyer who handled the probe until his ouster, has similarly argued that Trump should not submit to an interview.

Several of Trump’s informal advisers have expressed similar reservations. “I don’t think the president of the United States, unless there are credible allegations—which I don’t believe there are—should be sitting across from a special counsel,” Chris Christie said during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America last week. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who played an instrumental role in Bill Clinton’s impeachment, also struck a note of caution: “The idea of putting Trump in a room with five or six hardened, very clever lawyers, all of whom are trying to trick him and trap him, would be a very, very bad idea,” Gingrich said during an interview with Fox & Friends. Outside lawyers have telegraphed similar views; “I don’t think there is any gain for him to speak to Mueller,” Renato Mariotti, a former Chicago prosecutor, told my colleague Chris Smith.

In fact, the only people in support of a Trump-Mueller interview appear to be White House lawyer Ty Cobb, who has continually advocated for cooperation with Mueller (a stance that has at times put him at odds with other members of Trump’s legal team), and the president himself. Trump has publicly signaled his willingness to sit down with Mueller’s team, telling reporters at the end of last month, “I’m looking forward to it, actually.” Behind the scenes, the president has indicated that he’s convinced a Mueller interview would leave him unscathed because, as he’s told associates, he “has done nothing wrong.”

But even if that holds true, Trump’s allergy to hard fact could very well trip him up, as the charges against former national security adviser Mike Flynn and former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos have illustrated. “In his prior depositions, you’re looking for the style in which he answers—the extent to which he’s prepped,” former federal prosecutor Sam Buell explained to Smith. “The superficial view would be that every day this guy makes stuff up as he goes along, so Trump is going to be a terrible witness, and he’ll say things that will get him in trouble.”