| From | Michael Waldman, Brennan Center for Justice <[email protected]> |
| Subject | The Briefing: Will reform follow scandal? |
| Date | September 23, 2025 8:46 PM |
Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
It’s time to end politically motivated prosecutions and pardons.
[link removed]
The presidency has seen its fair share of political retribution and self-dealing. John Adams prosecuted political dissenters. Richard Nixon had an enemies list. Joe Biden pardoned his son.
All that may pale in comparison to what we’ve seen over the past few days.
There was President Trump’s public demand
[link removed]
that the attorney general prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA). When a top federal prosecutor did not bring charges against James and Comey, Trump pushed
[link removed]
him out.
Meanwhile, there was the MSNBC story of Tom Homan, now the immigration “tsar,” videotaped
[link removed]
accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents last year in a bag from the fast-casual chain Cava. (I’ll have a bowl of greens, please.) Trump officials shut down the investigation. Homan, yesterday, did not deny the handoff but insisted
[link removed]
, “I did nothing criminal.”
Not to mention the New York Times
[link removed]
report about a White House deal with the United Arab Emirates and a $2 billion investment in the Trump family crypto firm. And a new Brennan Center analysis
[link removed]
exposing how donors have received pardons and special favors in recent months.
Some 50 years ago, Watergate featured bags of cash and the firing of a prosecutor. That took two years to unfold, not a week.
Often, but not inevitably, reform follows scandal. After Watergate, Congress passed legislation to curb abuse and constrain the imperial presidency. They ranged from special prosecutor laws to new budget powers for Congress. Nixon’s Republican successor Gerald Ford established a tradition that the Justice Department should have considerable independence in order to avoid a repeat of political prosecutions.
A half-century eroded those constraints. The Supreme Court gutted the campaign finance laws and narrowed the definition of bribery. During Trump’s first term, it became clear that the guardrails were flimsy. In this term, they might as well not exist.
Will these newest transgressions become a major issue? Endless cacophony can distract from scandal. Who can even keep track? But voters do seem to understand the link between self-dealing, abuse of power, and rights violated. In just a few months, corruption has quickly emerged as a hot issue again.
Yet it won’t be enough for politicians to merely orate about restoring the rule of law. Leary voters think, “Everyone does it.” The only way to overcome that skepticism is with action.
That’s why it is encouraging that some lawmakers have begun to stir.
Last week, Schiff reintroduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act. Passed by the House in 2021, the bill would limit contacts between the White House and the Justice Department. It would bring transparency to the pardon process. It would create clear standards for enforcing the Constitution’s emoluments clauses — the provisions, so important to the founders, that prevent presidents from receiving bribes from foreign governments. It would restore Congress’s role as a check against the kind of presidential abuse of emergency powers that has become a hallmark
[link removed]
of this administration. And it would bolster Congress’s oversight role and reinforce its power over the purse. It was a strong measure to curb abuse of power.
The bill draws on key recommendations from a 2017 Brennan Center nonpartisan task force
[link removed]
— led by former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman — and from Brennan Center recommendations
[link removed]
for reforming the National Emergencies Act.
This reintroduced bill is a promising start. But reforms should keep evolving, growing stronger to address the magnitude of today’s new Gilded Age. One example: Tighter rules should be put in place to prevent the weaponization of the Justice Department against political enemies. It is illegal for presidents to order a tax audit of an individual, so they should not be able to order a criminal prosecution either. Perhaps individuals could be given standing to sue if they have been selectively prosecuted for political reasons.
As a reform era takes shape, we must all now grapple with a new and disturbing factor: a Supreme Court that previously constrained executive branch action through the “major questions” doctrine but now seems ever more eager to expand presidential power. After all, this administration’s impunity follows last year’s ruling giving presidents vast immunity from prosecution. Now we see the consequences of a judicially created lawless zone.
It might be tempting for those who are appalled by today’s abuses to quietly growl, but refuse to act, on the theory that they don’t want to limit their own power once they’re in. “After all, Trump did it, so why shouldn’t his successor?” That cynical take sounds savvy but is misguided.
The Protecting Our Democracy Act failed to pass even when the White House and Congress were in unified Democratic hands. Biden White House officials made it clear that they were not wild about a bill that would tie their hands even a bit. Count that as one more failure to harden the system against future abuse.
Wise constitutional constraints are not some self-defeating noblesse oblige. They are a key part of what makes our republic strong. Done right, enforced strongly, they constrain potential abuse not just now but into the future.
When (if!) this era of abuse ends, leaders from both parties will be called upon to enact new reforms to ensure this cannot happen again. Upon taking office, President Ford said that the end of the Watergate crisis was proof that “our Constitution works” and “our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men.” We must make sure the same is true today.
The Right Way to Fight Crime
The Trump administration has tried to justify deploying the National Guard to city streets and taking over the DC police department by claiming that it’s responding to a crime emergency. But there are two glaring issues with that claim: Data shows that crime has fallen in many cities across the country, including DC, and heavy-handed actions like sending in soldiers aren’t a real solution for long-term public safety. “History and recent experience both show that successful crime prevention requires careful planning and investment keyed to a city’s particular circumstances and needs,” JC Hendrickson and Ames Grawert write. Read more
[link removed]
Big Gains for Big Oil
On the campaign trail, Trump courted oil and gas executives and promised to advance their policy agenda if elected. Since taking office, he has followed through, governing in ways that are netting the fossil fuel industry billions. This dynamic “offers yet another stark example of how wealthy interests are shaping policies that affect the lives of all Americans,” Owen Bacskai writes. Read more
[link removed]
The High Cost of Cutting Mental Health Care
Earlier this year, the Justice Department canceled $820 million in grant awards, including $88 million meant for substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and programs where police partner with health professionals. “These cuts will hurt not only individuals suffering from these problems but also affect everyone’s safety by perpetuating cycles of behavioral health crises, arrests, and incarceration that put increased burdens on law enforcement,” Josephine Wonsun Hahn and Rosemary Nidiry write in a new installment of the Brennan Center’s series
[link removed]
on the effects of federal budget cuts on public safety. Read more
[link removed]
Detention Without Justification
The Trump administration is building a multibillion-dollar deportation industrial complex to meet its goal of arresting 3,000 immigrants a day. It claims to be targeting “the worst of the worst,” but government data shows that at least 70 percent of those in detention have no criminal record. Many had legal protections from deportation at the time of their arrest, and some are even U.S. citizens locked up by mistake. “Detaining citizens and immigrants without a public safety rationale is inconsistent with American values of liberty or fairness,” Margy O’Herron writes in Just Security. Read more
[link removed]
Coming Up
VIRTUAL EVENT: Democracy’s Day in Court
[link removed]
Tuesday, September 30, 3–4 p.m. ET
This year’s Supreme Court term will be a historic one for the future of presidential power and our system of checks and balances.
The Court has steadily chipped away at protections designed to make American democracy fairer, more inclusive, and more representative. It has gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, shut the courthouse doors to challenges to partisan gerrymandering, opened the floodgates to big money in politics, and allowed the president to dismantle checks and balances.
In the 2025–26 term, the justices will hear a set of cases that could accelerate that troublesome trend and produce landmark decisions. One case implicates how the Voting Rights Act ensures fair representation in state legislatures. Yet another takes up the controversy over the president’s asserted power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Legal experts and longtime Court watchers will break down some of the major cases on the docket and explain what the outcomes could mean for the future of American democracy. RSVP today
[link removed]
Produced with support from the Kohlberg Center on the U.S. Supreme Court
Want to keep up with Brennan Center events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.
[link removed]
News
Elizabeth Goitein on laws barring military interference in elections // HUFFPOST
[link removed]
Faiza Patel on the implications of designating “antifa” as a terrorist organization // NPR ONE
[link removed]
Daniel Weiner on Supreme Court decisions enabling political corruption // THE NEW YORK TIMES
[link removed]
Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
[link removed]
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
tel:646-292-8310
[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
Support Brennan Center
[link removed]
View Online
[link removed]
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here
[link removed]
to update your preferences.
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
The presidency has seen its fair share of political retribution and self-dealing. John Adams prosecuted political dissenters. Richard Nixon had an enemies list. Joe Biden pardoned his son.
All that may pale in comparison to what we’ve seen over the past few days.
There was President Trump’s public demand
[link removed]
that the attorney general prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA). When a top federal prosecutor did not bring charges against James and Comey, Trump pushed
[link removed]
him out.
Meanwhile, there was the MSNBC story of Tom Homan, now the immigration “tsar,” videotaped
[link removed]
accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents last year in a bag from the fast-casual chain Cava. (I’ll have a bowl of greens, please.) Trump officials shut down the investigation. Homan, yesterday, did not deny the handoff but insisted
[link removed]
, “I did nothing criminal.”
Not to mention the New York Times
[link removed]
report about a White House deal with the United Arab Emirates and a $2 billion investment in the Trump family crypto firm. And a new Brennan Center analysis
[link removed]
exposing how donors have received pardons and special favors in recent months.
Some 50 years ago, Watergate featured bags of cash and the firing of a prosecutor. That took two years to unfold, not a week.
Often, but not inevitably, reform follows scandal. After Watergate, Congress passed legislation to curb abuse and constrain the imperial presidency. They ranged from special prosecutor laws to new budget powers for Congress. Nixon’s Republican successor Gerald Ford established a tradition that the Justice Department should have considerable independence in order to avoid a repeat of political prosecutions.
A half-century eroded those constraints. The Supreme Court gutted the campaign finance laws and narrowed the definition of bribery. During Trump’s first term, it became clear that the guardrails were flimsy. In this term, they might as well not exist.
Will these newest transgressions become a major issue? Endless cacophony can distract from scandal. Who can even keep track? But voters do seem to understand the link between self-dealing, abuse of power, and rights violated. In just a few months, corruption has quickly emerged as a hot issue again.
Yet it won’t be enough for politicians to merely orate about restoring the rule of law. Leary voters think, “Everyone does it.” The only way to overcome that skepticism is with action.
That’s why it is encouraging that some lawmakers have begun to stir.
Last week, Schiff reintroduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act. Passed by the House in 2021, the bill would limit contacts between the White House and the Justice Department. It would bring transparency to the pardon process. It would create clear standards for enforcing the Constitution’s emoluments clauses — the provisions, so important to the founders, that prevent presidents from receiving bribes from foreign governments. It would restore Congress’s role as a check against the kind of presidential abuse of emergency powers that has become a hallmark
[link removed]
of this administration. And it would bolster Congress’s oversight role and reinforce its power over the purse. It was a strong measure to curb abuse of power.
The bill draws on key recommendations from a 2017 Brennan Center nonpartisan task force
[link removed]
— led by former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman — and from Brennan Center recommendations
[link removed]
for reforming the National Emergencies Act.
This reintroduced bill is a promising start. But reforms should keep evolving, growing stronger to address the magnitude of today’s new Gilded Age. One example: Tighter rules should be put in place to prevent the weaponization of the Justice Department against political enemies. It is illegal for presidents to order a tax audit of an individual, so they should not be able to order a criminal prosecution either. Perhaps individuals could be given standing to sue if they have been selectively prosecuted for political reasons.
As a reform era takes shape, we must all now grapple with a new and disturbing factor: a Supreme Court that previously constrained executive branch action through the “major questions” doctrine but now seems ever more eager to expand presidential power. After all, this administration’s impunity follows last year’s ruling giving presidents vast immunity from prosecution. Now we see the consequences of a judicially created lawless zone.
It might be tempting for those who are appalled by today’s abuses to quietly growl, but refuse to act, on the theory that they don’t want to limit their own power once they’re in. “After all, Trump did it, so why shouldn’t his successor?” That cynical take sounds savvy but is misguided.
The Protecting Our Democracy Act failed to pass even when the White House and Congress were in unified Democratic hands. Biden White House officials made it clear that they were not wild about a bill that would tie their hands even a bit. Count that as one more failure to harden the system against future abuse.
Wise constitutional constraints are not some self-defeating noblesse oblige. They are a key part of what makes our republic strong. Done right, enforced strongly, they constrain potential abuse not just now but into the future.
When (if!) this era of abuse ends, leaders from both parties will be called upon to enact new reforms to ensure this cannot happen again. Upon taking office, President Ford said that the end of the Watergate crisis was proof that “our Constitution works” and “our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men.” We must make sure the same is true today.
The Right Way to Fight Crime
The Trump administration has tried to justify deploying the National Guard to city streets and taking over the DC police department by claiming that it’s responding to a crime emergency. But there are two glaring issues with that claim: Data shows that crime has fallen in many cities across the country, including DC, and heavy-handed actions like sending in soldiers aren’t a real solution for long-term public safety. “History and recent experience both show that successful crime prevention requires careful planning and investment keyed to a city’s particular circumstances and needs,” JC Hendrickson and Ames Grawert write. Read more
[link removed]
Big Gains for Big Oil
On the campaign trail, Trump courted oil and gas executives and promised to advance their policy agenda if elected. Since taking office, he has followed through, governing in ways that are netting the fossil fuel industry billions. This dynamic “offers yet another stark example of how wealthy interests are shaping policies that affect the lives of all Americans,” Owen Bacskai writes. Read more
[link removed]
The High Cost of Cutting Mental Health Care
Earlier this year, the Justice Department canceled $820 million in grant awards, including $88 million meant for substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and programs where police partner with health professionals. “These cuts will hurt not only individuals suffering from these problems but also affect everyone’s safety by perpetuating cycles of behavioral health crises, arrests, and incarceration that put increased burdens on law enforcement,” Josephine Wonsun Hahn and Rosemary Nidiry write in a new installment of the Brennan Center’s series
[link removed]
on the effects of federal budget cuts on public safety. Read more
[link removed]
Detention Without Justification
The Trump administration is building a multibillion-dollar deportation industrial complex to meet its goal of arresting 3,000 immigrants a day. It claims to be targeting “the worst of the worst,” but government data shows that at least 70 percent of those in detention have no criminal record. Many had legal protections from deportation at the time of their arrest, and some are even U.S. citizens locked up by mistake. “Detaining citizens and immigrants without a public safety rationale is inconsistent with American values of liberty or fairness,” Margy O’Herron writes in Just Security. Read more
[link removed]
Coming Up
VIRTUAL EVENT: Democracy’s Day in Court
[link removed]
Tuesday, September 30, 3–4 p.m. ET
This year’s Supreme Court term will be a historic one for the future of presidential power and our system of checks and balances.
The Court has steadily chipped away at protections designed to make American democracy fairer, more inclusive, and more representative. It has gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, shut the courthouse doors to challenges to partisan gerrymandering, opened the floodgates to big money in politics, and allowed the president to dismantle checks and balances.
In the 2025–26 term, the justices will hear a set of cases that could accelerate that troublesome trend and produce landmark decisions. One case implicates how the Voting Rights Act ensures fair representation in state legislatures. Yet another takes up the controversy over the president’s asserted power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Legal experts and longtime Court watchers will break down some of the major cases on the docket and explain what the outcomes could mean for the future of American democracy. RSVP today
[link removed]
Produced with support from the Kohlberg Center on the U.S. Supreme Court
Want to keep up with Brennan Center events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.
[link removed]
News
Elizabeth Goitein on laws barring military interference in elections // HUFFPOST
[link removed]
Faiza Patel on the implications of designating “antifa” as a terrorist organization // NPR ONE
[link removed]
Daniel Weiner on Supreme Court decisions enabling political corruption // THE NEW YORK TIMES
[link removed]
Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
[link removed]
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
tel:646-292-8310
[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
Support Brennan Center
[link removed]
View Online
[link removed]
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here
[link removed]
to update your preferences.
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
Message Analysis
- Sender: Brennan Center for Justice
- Political Party: n/a
- Country: United States
- State/Locality: n/a
- Office: n/a
-
Email Providers:
- Litmus