Richard Nixon set the table for the presidential excesses of today

“When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”                                                             

 -Former President Richard M. Nixon 

He made that stunning statement to television personality David Frost in a May 1977 interview that reached an audience of 45 million, reported Just Security. Nixon’s quote is often cited to illustrate the epitome of his arrogance and blindness to the rule of law — his confidence that his power rose to such heights that he possessed a presidential prerogative to redefine the law. For nearly fifty years, that statement stood at the apex of presidential contempt for the law. But a new contender has emerged. Within weeks of taking office for his second term in 2025, President Donald Trump posted, “He who saves his Country does not violate any law.” Trump apparently believes that his definition of saving the country includes whatever he believes needs to be done, with the law no obstacle. The months since he made the statement are consistent with that theory.

While Trump’s statement rivals Nixon’s in placing the president above the law, a nearly forgotten postscript to Nixon’s statement reveals that Nixon made a far more nuanced argument for presidential power. Less than a month after the Frost interview, Nixon published a full-page essay in the Washington Star to correct “widespread misinterpretations of the comments I made on the inherent powers of the presidency.” Nixon’s essay was an effort to repudiate the widespread perception that he asserted a pretense to monarchical power—akin to a claim that the “king can do no wrong.” He explained that his comment to Frost reflected his belief that in emergency circumstances, a president must sometimes violate the letter of the law to preserve its spirit. According to Nixon, this view echoed positions held by former Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

Nixon’s lost apologia deserves renewed attention—especially with Nixon’s recent return to the headlines. This summer, Vice President J.D. Vance expressed his admiration for Nixon while seeking to rewrite the saga of Watergate. In Vance’s eyes, Nixon was brought down by the “deep state,” and Watergate today would be “like a 12-hour news story.” But minimizing Nixon’s enormous abuses of power does not make them vanish. If anything, Vance’s effort to rehabilitate Nixon makes it all the more important to grapple with Nixon’s own explanation of his actions—and to demonstrate the flaws in a line of thinking — and an attempt at justification — that places the president above the law.

A president’s assertions of unchecked powers in a perceived emergency inherently invites abuse. But Nixon does not stand alone in claiming such powers. The view that a president has free rein in an emergency to override the law reflects a longstanding current in American views of presidential power. Taking Nixon seriously can help clarify what to expect from a president in an emergency—where unexpected circumstances pose challenges that Congress either did not anticipate or fails to address.

Our current norm-shattering presidency acknowledges no such boundaries. Nixon’s excesses may have foreshadowed Trump’s—the flagrant deception, the impoundments of appropriated funds, the denigration of Congress, the muscular use of the military, the political dirty tricks, the electoral interference, and myriad abuses of power all have Nixonian antecedents. But the brazenness and scale of Trump’s actions make Nixon’s transgressions pale by comparison. Trump has made extravagant claims of presidential power — in the political arena, in court, and in secret — often fueled by massive deceptions and power grabs, that Nixon’s seem tame. The emergence of such unchecked authority makes defining when a president has exceeded his constitutional powers a more pressing question than ever. So do the threats over the horizon, including the prospect of the president claiming emergency powers to meddle with U.S. elections.

What we learn from Nixon’s forgotten essay is this: presidential initiative may be essential, but democracy can tolerate only so much unilateral presidential action before government too closely resembles a monarchy or autocracy. Trump’s razing of legal barriers has underscored that the post-Watergate reforms adopted 50 years ago to rein in presidential power are fragile and, in some cases, ineffective. A president determined to impose his will on the nation, who has a weak or compliant Congress, and who treats laws as dispensable faces few constraints, at least in the short term, and in many realms, perhaps indefinitely. Just as the nation enacted a suite of reforms after Watergate to strengthen the rule of law, new reforms after Trump will be vital to prevent runaway executive power. No rebuilding project is more important to democracy than defining the limits to presidential power and installing practical means of enforcing them.

To read more CLICK HERE