America is known to be a land of freedom and equality, in which all can take pride in having equal access to opportunity and rights. However, this idealized vision is not without its flaws. The recent controversies, notably the fraud allegations surrounding former President Donald Trump, have thrust the issue of presidential immunity into the spotlight, highlighting significant inequities on how justice is applied and maintained. Former President Trump has actively sought to avoid his impending trial, with one of his recent legal maneuvers being an attempt to dismiss the case altogether. He claims that “as a former president he enjoys ‘absolute immunity’ from criminal prosecution for any ‘official acts’ during his tenure,” as reported by ABC News. Despite the presidency being one of the most influential and important jobs in the world, it is crucial to remember that the president is, at the core, a human being like any other–capable of actions that can not only benefit the nation, but harm it as well. A president, having enormous responsibility, has the potential to cause enormous harm; for example, as the Congressional Research Center informs, “The U.S. President has sole authority to authorize the use of U.S. nuclear weapons,” clearly putting the amount of power that the President possesses into perspective. This stark reality reinforces the argument that the President of America should not have complete immunity from criminal accusations, ensuring accountability and adherence to the law.
The concept of “presidential immunity” was initially designed to protect the nation’s chief executive from frivolous lawsuits, especially in times when drastic actions are required, that could detract them from their duties. Yet, this protection must be weighed against the foundation principles of the United States– particularly egalitarianism. The presidency, equipped with power and authority, should not serve as a shield to evade accountability. Misusing this privilege would set a dangerous precedent, allowing misdeeds and corruption to hide behind the veil of office. This would directly contradict the ethos of democratic accountability and virtue. The debate around this issue has especially intensified following legal chances involving sitting and former presidents. While the news surrounding Trump is more well known, this isn’t the first time such controversy has stirred up. For example, during the Watergate scandal, former President Richard Nixon’s assertion of executive privilege was struck down by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the notion that no one, not even the President, is above the law.
Present-day supporters of presidential immunity will claim that without such protections, the president would be crippled by litigation, stifling their influence and severely hindering their ability to help the nation progress. This concern, while valid, overlooks the ability of the US legal system to balance national interests with judicial processes. The legal framework is sufficiently robust to distinguish between genuine legal disputes and politically motivated charges. As Erica Newland and Kristy Parker from Just Security affirm, “Taken together, the various ethical rules and standards that govern prosecutors’ conduct collectively prohibit prosecutors from advancing politically motivated investigations or those that appear to be politically motivated.” Additionally, presidential immunity risks undermining trust in the United States’ political institutions. If the president is completely shielded from all criminal accountability, it contradicts transparency and could erode public confidence in the fairness of American governance.
But if complete immunity is out of the question, what other solutions can we pursue? A more nuanced approach could involve deferring certain legal actions until after a president’s term has ended. This would allow a president to focus primarily on their duties, while still ensuring that they face the consequences of their actions once they leave office. In fact, different variants of this same idea has already been proposed by several influential figures, a notable one being Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist No. 69 written by Alexander Hamilton as provided by Yale Law School: “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” This concept would serve as a compromise, maintaining the uninterrupted function of the presidency while also preserving the notion that all actions have consequences.
All in all, it is vital for the integrity of both the presidency and the United States law system that a president does not enjoy complete immunity from criminal prosecution. By rejecting absolute immunity, we affirm our commitment to a government of nation built on law and order, and not individuals, ensuring that our leaders are held to the same standards that govern all citizens. We fortify the very foundations of our democracy, ensuring it remains a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people.