Trump and Nixon: A Comparison of Presidential Power and the Law
The statement “When a president does it, it’s not against the law,” made by Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal, remains one of the most famous and controversial quotes in American political history. The line suggests that the president, as the head of the executive branch, holds such authority that his actions cannot be subjected to the same legal scrutiny as those of ordinary citizens. Nixon’s claim was widely rejected and criticized, particularly in the wake of the Watergate scandal, which led to his resignation in 1974. However, this sentiment has resurfaced in modern American politics, notably through the actions and rhetoric of former President Donald Trump. Trump, much like Nixon, has at times invoked the idea that the president is beyond reproach, claiming that certain actions he has taken while in office were justified by the immense powers of the presidency. This essay explores how Trump’s behavior and statements reflect an ongoing debate about presidential power and accountability, drawing comparisons with Nixon’s controversial stance and assessing the implications for American democracy and the rule of law.
Nixon’s Assertion of Presidential Power
Richard Nixon’s infamous assertion that “When a president does it, it’s not against the law,” made in 1977 during an interview with David Frost, epitomized his view of presidential power during the Watergate scandal. Nixon was attempting to justify the illegal actions taken by his administration, particularly the cover-up of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex. Nixon argued that because the president’s authority was so vast, actions undertaken in the name of protecting national interests could not be subject to legal scrutiny or consequences.
This claim, however, was an attempt to protect himself from the legal and political fallout of the scandal. It was based on the belief that the president had unassailable power, but it ultimately proved untenable in the face of mounting evidence of wrongdoing. Nixon’s defense relied heavily on the notion of executive privilege, which he argued gave him the authority to withhold information from other branches of government, including Congress. The notion that the president could act without regard for the law or Constitution, as Nixon suggested, was met with widespread outrage and skepticism.
Following Nixon’s resignation and the conclusion of the Watergate hearings, the notion that a president could be above the law was thoroughly rejected by both Congress and the American public. Nixon’s claim was part of a broader crisis of legitimacy for the presidency, one that highlighted the importance of holding elected officials accountable, regardless of their position of power. The Watergate scandal prompted reforms aimed at curbing the influence of the executive branch and ensuring greater transparency and accountability in government.
Trump’s Claim of Presidential Immunity
Donald Trump’s presidency was marked by a series of controversies and legal challenges that echoed some of the issues raised during Nixon’s time in office. One of the defining aspects of Trump’s approach to the presidency was his frequent invocation of executive power and his assertion that, as president, he was above the law. Trump’s rhetoric and actions during his time in office often mirrored the authoritarian tendencies that Nixon had displayed, asserting that presidential actions were immune from legal scrutiny.
One of the most notable instances of Trump asserting that the president could not be held accountable came during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and his subsequent impeachment. When asked about his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, Trump famously said, “I have the absolute right to do it.” This statement was part of a broader pattern of behavior in which Trump appeared to believe that, as president, his actions could not be questioned or restrained by law. The assertion of absolute presidential power was made clear in many instances, including Trump’s repeated claims that he was immune from prosecution while in office.
Trump’s impeachment in 2019 centered around his actions related to Ukraine, where he allegedly pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden, his political rival, in exchange for military aid. In his defense, Trump argued that his actions were within his presidential prerogative and that his personal interests were justified as part of his official duties. In response to the impeachment, Trump’s defenders and allies, including several Republican lawmakers, argued that the president could not be impeached for actions that were, in their view, in the national interest. This argument closely resembled Nixon’s defense of his actions during the Watergate scandal — that the president was acting in the best interests of the country and therefore should not be subjected to legal consequences.
Additionally, Trump’s refusal to cooperate with investigations, including his defiance of subpoenas issued by Congress, further echoed Nixon’s attempts to assert executive privilege. In a way, Trump’s administration seemed to revive Nixon’s legacy of challenging the boundaries of presidential power, even in the face of clear legal challenges. Whether it was his attempts to obstruct justice, refuse cooperation with investigations, or undermine the legal system, Trump adopted a position that the president was untouchable by the law, just as Nixon had argued years earlier.
The Legal and Constitutional Debate
The claim that a president is above the law raises significant constitutional questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and the other branches of government. In the U.S. system of government, power is deliberately divided among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to prevent any one branch from gaining too much control. The Founding Fathers believed that the president, while holding significant power, should still be subject to checks and balances from Congress and the judiciary.
The concept of executive privilege, which allows the president to withhold certain information from Congress or the courts, is an important aspect of presidential power. However, this privilege is not absolute and must be balanced against the need for accountability and transparency. The idea that a president can act outside the boundaries of the law or evade scrutiny for illegal actions is fundamentally at odds with the Constitution’s framers’ vision of a system of checks and balances.
The case of United States v. Nixon, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974, was a landmark moment in the ongoing debate about presidential power. In that case, the Court ruled that President Nixon had to turn over tapes that were crucial to the Watergate investigation, rejecting Nixon’s claim of absolute executive privilege. The Court’s decision reaffirmed the principle that not even the president is above the law. The ruling set a precedent that no matter how powerful the office, the president could be held accountable for actions that violated the law.
Despite this legal precedent, Trump’s presidency brought new challenges to the idea of accountability for a sitting president. His repeated assertions of presidential immunity were part of a broader pattern of defying legal norms, and his rhetoric during his tenure raised questions about whether the legal protections afforded to the president could be manipulated for political gain. While Trump was impeached twice by the House of Representatives, he was acquitted both times by the Senate, illustrating the deeply divided political landscape that complicated any attempts to hold him legally accountable.
The Consequences for American Democracy
The idea that a president is above the law carries serious implications for American democracy. When the executive branch is allowed to act without legal constraints, it undermines the very foundation of democratic governance — accountability. The rule of law, which holds that all individuals, including government officials, are subject to the law, is a cornerstone of American democracy. The failure to hold presidents accountable for their actions erodes public trust in government and perpetuates a system of impunity that can be exploited for personal or political gain.
Both Nixon and Trump sought to consolidate power within the executive branch, diminishing the role of other branches of government and challenging the legitimacy of legal and congressional oversight. While Nixon’s actions ultimately led to his downfall, Trump’s presidency exposed how far the political system could be pushed before the limits of presidential power were tested. The rise of populist politics and the polarization of American society further complicated the question of presidential accountability, with some segments of the population willing to overlook or excuse illegal actions by the president due to political loyalty.
One of the most troubling aspects of the Trump era was how the notion of presidential immunity and unchecked executive power found a significant portion of its support in Congress. Many Republican lawmakers, despite evidence of misconduct, continued to support Trump, arguing that his actions were either justified or not deserving of legal consequence. This stark partisan divide over the issue of presidential power has left the question of accountability unresolved, and it raises the risk that future presidents, regardless of party, could adopt similar strategies to avoid the law.
Conclusion
The statement made by Richard Nixon, “When a president does it, it’s not against the law,” was a declaration of the idea that the president’s actions should not be subject to the same legal scrutiny as those of other citizens. Nixon’s attempt to justify illegal behavior by invoking the powers of the presidency was rejected by both the public and the courts, and it became one of the key factors that led to his resignation. However, Donald Trump’s presidency revived this debate about presidential immunity, as he frequently asserted that his actions were justified by the vast powers of the office. Trump’s rhetoric and behavior mirrored Nixon’s, suggesting that some leaders may believe that the presidency is a position of unchecked power. Ultimately, the claim that a president is above the law challenges the foundations of American democracy and the principles of accountability that have long defined the rule of law in the United States. The lessons from Nixon’s downfall should serve as a reminder that no one, not even the president, is beyond the law. The future of American democracy depends on the continued commitment to the principle of accountability and the safeguarding of the checks and balances that ensure that power remains with the people.
4o mini
