Written by Edie Christian
“I am not a crook”.
President Richard Nixon spoke these infamous words in a 1973 press conference denying his involvement in the Watergate break-in and its subsequent cover-up. More than a year after the press conference, Nixon resigned in disgrace to avoid impeachment. His successor, Gerald Ford, employed the power of the presidential pardon upon Nixon to absolve him from any wrongdoing. Executive clemency has always been available to the president throughout the two centuries of United States (US) government, but the pardoning of Nixon has been seen to represent a watershed moment through which the convention has been corrupted. This misuse of power has set an unnerving precedent in recent years for both the abuse of the presidential pardon, as well as an avoidance of presidential accountability.
The presidential pardon power is enumerated in Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, allowing the executive to ‘grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States’. The framers of the Constitution explicitly separated the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the US government; they also attributed checks and balances to each branch, in order to limit the power of the others. Those powers that belong to the president – pardons, vetoes, and executive orders – were each designed to prevent the corruption of other branches but draw significant controversy. Jeffrey Toobin, author of The Pardon, argues that “no other provision of the constitution replicates royal authority with such precision”. Indeed, the initial independence of the US from an overarching British monarchy is arguably threatened by the growing significance of a presidential figure. Executive clemency has always drawn controversy due to its circumventing of judicial procedure, but the pardoning of Nixon represents an individual avoidance of legal accountability from those holding the highest office within America.
Richard Nixon was inaugurated as the 37th president of the US in January 1969, following election promises to restore law and order and bring ‘peace and honour’ to the Vietnam War. These appealed to people on both sides, who were becoming increasingly discontented with the 1960s counterculture and the ongoing war. Several years into his presidency, five burglars were caught attempting to bug the Democratic Party Headquarters at the Watergate hotel on 17th June, 1972. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered that this, and other campaigns of ‘dirty tricks’, had been organised and funded by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), the fundraising branch of Nixon’s campaign. Nixon had remained relatively popular throughout his presidency, even after the story broke; he went on to be re-elected with 60.7 percent the same year, the largest share of the popular vote by any Republican. Ultimately, most people were uninterested in the story until the Senate established and televised the special Watergate Committee to investigate. Nixon was adamant in his denials of wrongdoing, but the discovery that he had wiretapped the Oval Office – with incriminating tapes as evidence – was the beginning of the end for his presidency. It seemed almost certain that he would be impeached; although this process has happened before and since to presidents Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump twice, none of these were convicted for their transgressions afterwards, which Nixon almost certainly would have been. The ubiquitous nature of political scandal today makes the Watergate break-in seem tame in comparison, but it was the first instance of a protracted and accessible – through its televised hearings – presidential scandal in the US, with the suffix ‘-gate’ central to the political lexicon today.
The Nixon pardon created a storm of outrage. It remains a central aspect of Ford’s legacy, and a huge factor in his 1976 election loss. Although the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had ruled in United States v. Nixon (1974) that the president’s communications could be subpoenaed, and was therefore not above the law, he undoubtedly evaded responsibility for criminal actions. It is still unknown – and widely debated today – the extent to which Nixon was involved with the Watergate break-in, as well as other ‘dirty tricks’ from his campaign. It is undeniable, however, that he was central to the cover-up in the following years, a crime in itself. The full and unconditional pardon was ostensibly to heal the national tragedy caused by Watergate; instead, it set a precedent for the mishandling of executive clemency, largely to benefit the friends and family of subsequent administrations. Amidst the controversy surrounding Bill Clinton’s use of executive clemency, due to their sheer volume, he pardoned his half-brother for a drug-trafficking conviction. More recently, Joe Biden drew controversy for preemptively pardoning several family members at the end of his presidency – he also pardoned Anthony Fauci, who headed the White House’s COVID-19 response, and members of the House January 6th riot investigation. Although having claimed that he would not use his presidential authority in this way, Biden argued that the “raw politics [that] has infected this process” necessitated the decision.
The recent inauguration of Donald Trump only suggests an increase in the use of presidential authority being similarly exploited. On his first day back in office, Trump immediately granted executive clemency to approximately 1500 people involved in the violent insurrection at Capitol Hill on 6th January 2021 – he also commuted the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers Militia. This decision has predictably proved controversial, even within the Republican Party itself; less than a week prior, Vice President JD Vance argued that if violence was committed during the insurrection, as it undeniably had been, then “obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned”. In particular, the violence committed against police officers and government officials – highly valued by Trump supporters – presents a particular moral quandary for the progression of the Republican party at the beginning of Trump’s second term. Throughout his first term in office, Trump’s uses of executive clemency have been shown to have licensed violence in the pardoning of the Blackwater Guards and rewarded illegal activity in the pardoning of strategist Steve Bannon. As well as this, he used pardons to protect himself throughout Robert Mueller’s investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The growing influence of billionaire Elon Musk upon the presidential office has caused great concern, particularly with his recent suggestion on X (formerly Twitter) that Derek Chauvin, the police officer who murdered George Floyd in 2020, should be pardoned. The historic tradition of executive clemency has been misemployed in such a way as to grant royal authority to the figure of the president – the volatility of the Trump administration will certainly benefit from the control granted by the presidential pardon, and it remains to be seen the effect of such unchecked power upon the American justice system.
Bibliography
Foer, Franklin. “Blame Gerald Ford for Trump’s Unaccountability.” The Atlantic, 11 Feb. 2025, http://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2025/02/gerald-fords-nixon-pardon-paved-the-way-for-elon-musk/681637/. Accessed 6 Mar. 2025.
Green, Lloyd. ““Royal Authority”: Jeffrey Toobin Explores the US Presidential Pardon in His New Book.” The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 Feb. 2025, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/feb/23/jeffrey-toobin-the-pardon-book. Accessed 6 Mar. 2025.
Korecki, Natasha. “Biden and Trump Pardons Come under Scrutiny, Renewing Calls for Reform.” NBC News, 4 Mar. 2025, http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/biden-trump-pardons-scrutiny-renewing-calls-reform-rcna193056.
Mesa, Jesus. “Elon Musk Weighs in on Derek Chauvin Pardon Proposal from Ben Shapiro.” Newsweek, 4 Mar. 2025, http://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-weighs-derek-chauvin-pardon-proposal-ben-shapiro-2039593. Accessed 6 Mar. 2025.
NCC Staff. “The Nixon Pardon in Constitutional Retrospect – National Constitution Center.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.org, 8 Sept. 2023, constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-nixon-pardon-in-retrospect.
Wendling, Mike. “Trump Pardons Give Jan 6 Defendants Nearly Everything They Wanted.” BBC, 21 Jan. 2025, http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw4vjvlgxpo.
Woodward, Bob, and Carl Bernstein. All the President’s Men. 1974. London, Simon & Schuster, 2006.
Featured Image Credit: David Hume Kennerly, President Ford Announces His Decision to Pardon Former President Richard Nixon, September 8, 1974, September 8, 1974, Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Retrospect Journal 
