On September 8, 1974, America witnessed one of the most shameful moments in its history: the “absolute pardon” of Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace, accused of obstruction of justice and abuse of power for his role in the Watergate scandal.
One month after taking office, President Gerald R. Ford handed Nixon a get-out-of-jail-free card for any crimes he may have committed during his presidency. With this single stroke, Ford not only absolved Nixon of accountability but set a precedent that would reverberate through the halls of power for decades.
If Nixon was indicted and subject to a criminal trial, Ford claimed, “the tranquillity to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost.”
Nixon, who resigned in disgrace over the Watergate scandal, escaped the reckoning that any other citizen would face.
His pardon was supposed to heal the nation, but instead, it sent a chilling message to future presidents: If you’re powerful enough, the rules don’t apply. What followed was an escalating spree of presidential misconduct, with each successive administration pushing the boundaries of executive overreach, corruption, and criminality.
The Birth of Presidential Immunity
Nixon’s pardon didn’t just save him from prison—it forever altered the balance of power in Washington.
Ronald Reagan, just a decade later, would carry this torch of impunity with his administration’s involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan’s team brazenly traded arms for hostages and illegally funneled money to the Nicaraguan Contras despite a congressional ban on such funding known as the Boland Amendment.
After the covert Contra support operation was exposed with the shooting down of a U.S.-backed supply plane in October 1986, State Department and CIA officials testified falsely to Congress about U.S. ignorance of the program.
This gross violation of U.S. law resulted in scandal, but where were the consequences? None. The damage was done. Presidential lawbreaking was now excusable as long as it was cloaked in national security rhetoric.
In 1992, George H. W. Bush pardoned six individuals involved in the Iran-Contra affair, raising suspicions of obstruction of justice to protect those who could have implicated him in the scandal even though he was substantially aware of, and participated in aspects of, the illicit operations.
The evidence surfaced years later because key participants withheld it from prosecutors to hide the fact that operations were carried out in secret because they ran directly counter to declared U.S. policy, presidential public statements, and formal assurances to Congress.
The 1989 invasion of Panama and the ousting of Manuel Noriega were controversial, with accusations of violating international law. Bush, however, was not held accountable legally.
Bill Clinton, a president who famously lied under oath, faced impeachment but dodged the ultimate bullet. He lost his law license, sure, but the lesson learned? Perjury and obstruction of justice don’t warrant true accountability for a president.
It was another bipartisan brick laid in the path paved by Nixon’s pardon—once you’re president, no crime is too serious to be ignored.
Then came George W. Bush, who took executive dishonesty to international levels. Bush and his administration peddled lies about weapons of mass destruction to justify a catastrophic invasion of Iraq.
The war cost the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, while birthing the monstrous terror group ISIS.
Bush’s administration also authorized the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorism suspects, including the infliction of severe physical pain or mental suffering to extract information, which were violations of international law, including the Geneva Conventions.
What consequences did Bush face for misleading Congress, violating international law, destabilizing an entire region, and using torture? None. Another chapter in the sordid saga of presidential immunity.
The Bush administration also secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless wiretapping of American citizens following 9/11, sparking accusations of violating constitutional rights. These practices continued under Barack Obama, despite the Fourth Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures by the government.
The controversy surrounding the legality of surveillance of US persons centers on constitutional matters, including the separation of powers and the Fourth Amendment. Yet, neither Bush nor Obama have been held accountable for their actions in this regard.
Al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, born in Denver, Colorado, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011.
Obama’s administration significantly expanded the use of drone strikes, including the killing of U.S. citizens abroad without trial, such as Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen on September 30, 2011.
Samir Khan was a U.S. citizen of Pakistani origin and the editor of AQAP’s English-language propaganda magazine, Inspire. He was not directly involved in operational terrorist activities but his death was collateral damage in the strike that targeted al-Awlaki
Critics accused Obama of violating due process and international law, but no charges were brought and Nawar “Nora” al-Awlaki was an eight-year-old American citizen who was killed on January 29, 2017, during a commando raid ordered by President Donald Trump.
Trump: The Pinnacle of Corruption
No one exploited this erosion of accountability like Donald Trump.
From accepting foreign money and conflicts of interest to paying hush money to cover up scandalous affairs, Trump tested the boundaries of what an American president could get away with.
After decisively losing the 2020 election, he attempted to overturn the results with a campaign of lies that culminated in the deadly January 6th insurrection.
Even after these grave assaults on democracy, Trump still faces the specter of evading meaningful consequences, as courts and political processes have been slow to hold him accountable.
The Supreme Court’s Complicity
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court—tainted by Trump’s influence and its own ethical failures—has cemented this cycle of immunity.
The nation’s top court has, in effect, signaled that criminal behavior by high-ranking officials, if disguised as official acts, is perfectly acceptable.
The irony is brutal: a body supposedly dedicated to upholding the rule of law is now contributing to its erosion, contradicting centuries of American values that asserted no one is above the law.
What began with Nixon’s pardon in 1974 has become a festering wound in the fabric of American democracy.
Presidents are now emboldened to believe that no matter what crimes they commit, they will escape real accountability. It’s not just Nixon who was let off the hook—Ford’s pardon unleashed a culture of unchecked executive power that continues to corrode our republic.
The only question left now is: How much more will America tolerate?