Trump Is Nixon 2.0
'When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.'
—Richard Nixon, 1977
'He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.'
—Donald Trump, 2025
Hollywood has led us to believe the myth that authoritarians are hyper-competent, ideologically driven supervillains. The reality is more often the opposite. Authoritarians are small, petty men, obsessed with taking revenge on those who do not share their own inflated sense of self-importance. Their rise to power is a product of structural and civic failure rather than their own brilliance or competence.
President Richard Nixon was a night owl. After the end of official business, he would decamp from the White House to a secret office in what is now the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. He would spend the wee hours of the morning obsessively reading newspaper articles that criticized him, annotating them for his aides, and demanding they find ways to punish the offending journalists and news outlets. One aide complained that he had 'logged 21 requests from the President' in a month and he could not satiate Nixon's obsession for finding enemies. Nixon compiled long lists of his foes with titles like, 'Those We Can Never Count On,' filled with hundreds of names.
Nixon's hunger for retribution against his critics led to the creation of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (later nicknamed CREEP by the press), a shadowy, semi-official organization that could settle such slights—by illegal means if necessary. When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times—creating a public relations nightmare for the Nixon administration—CREEP operatives burglarized the offices of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, trying to find embarrassing and discrediting evidence of mental illness. CREEP's lawlessness ultimately sparked the Watergate scandal, which forced Nixon's resignation. Live by the obsession, die by the obsession.
President Donald Trump keeps a less nocturnal schedule, although he watches conservative cable news programs for hours every day, frequently calling in to his favorite shows to correct perceived slights. He annotates critical newspaper articles with a sharpie and sends them back to the offending journalists. For instance, after writer Graydon Carter described Trump a 'short-fingered vulgarian' in Spy magazine in 1988, Trump spent the next quarter of a century mailing him photocopies of his hands. In the digital era, Trump added the habit of tweeting (or 'truthing') his grievances, up to 200 times a day, or 26,000 times during his first term alone.
Trump's obsession with settling old scores has been a consistent through-line of the early abuses of executive power during his second term. This is no secret. Trump campaigned on retribution, threatening to go after those officials who attempted to hold him to account for both the January 6, 2021, insurrection and his financial crimes. Since taking office, he has followed through, defenestrating the Justice Department by firing the January 6 prosecutors and stripping security details and clearances from government officials who dared to question him.
But the insult added to illiberal injury is how petty and personal the scores being settled can be. For example, in retaliation for Joe Biden removing several Trump apparatchiks from the board of the Kennedy Center, Trump fired its leadership and installed himself as chairman of the performing arts venue, which he snubbed during his first term.
Likewise, Trump recently fired the head of the National Archives—the usually boring, nonpartisan repository of presidential records because they had the audacity of enforcing the Presidential Records Act when Trump took classified information with him to Mar-a-Lago after leaving office. Trump has even asked his advisers to compile a 'list' of the National Archives staff responsible for this outrageous insult so that he can purge them. National archivists typically have a technical or scholarly background, but the primary qualifications of Trump's chosen replacement, James Byron, are that he was CEO of the Richard Nixon Foundation and wrote a guide to the souvenirs offered in the gift shop at the Nixon Library.
Like Nixon and CREEP, Trump has his own team of loyal operatives willing to bend or break the law in order to root out his internal enemies. Officially, Trump tasked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with finding trillions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse by federal agencies. Despite its name, DOGE is not an actual executive department; it subsumed the U.S. Digital Service, an IT consulting task force that was a holdover from the Obama administrationthat was created to update computer systems, not take over and audit federal agencies. Regardless, teams including teenagers and young 20-somethings operating out of DOGE's offices, which are just a few hundred feet from the old headquarters of CREEP, have illicitly raided federal agencies including USAID, Treasury, and the IRS to gain access to their internal databases.
One key difference between the two is that DOGE is operating at a scale that CREEP could only have dreamed of. Instead of a handful of Cuban expatriates breaking into DNC headquarters at the Watergate hotel and combing through filing cabinets, DOGE has been systematically vacuuming up the records of millions of Americans. Remember, Nixon's operatives were hunting for information that could embarrass his enemies and foment his political agenda. DOGE is doing the same by attempting to surface stories of woke DEI excess to embarrass Trump's enemies and foment his political agenda. (Several of these stories have since been discredited or found to be exaggerated.)
DOGE is also a much higher-profile endeavor. CREEP's leadership included middling political operatives like Jeb Stuart Magruder and G. Gordon Liddy, whereas DOGE's head is Elon Musk, the wealthiest man in the world. Whereas Magruder and Liddy held off-the-books meetings with Nixon, Musk holds joint press conferences with Trump.
When CBS aired coverage critical of the administration's conduct of the Vietnam War, Nixon sent one of his CREEP operatives, Chuck Colson, to a meeting with network executives. Colson threatened CBS with enhanced regulatory scrutiny under a Federal Communications Commission rule called the 'Fairness Doctrine' if the network kept up its attacks. He proudly reported back to Nixon that the intimidation tactic had its intended effect, leaving CBS acting 'accommodating, cordial and almost apologetic.' CBS ultimately pulled several of its shows to placate Nixon and FCC Chairman Dean Burch.
Likewise, Trump is picking fights with CBS. His presidential campaign sued the network for its editorial choices in a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris and Trump's FCC chairman, Brendan Carr—who authored an essay for Project 2025 asserting the FCC's power to punish platforms that refuse to carry pro-Trump speech—is going after the network. The Fairness Doctrine no longer exists, so Carr is brushing off another obscure FCC regulation from the 1960s/70s, the 'news distortion' standard, and is threatening to hold up a proposed merger between CBS parent company Paramount and Skydance over the matter. In an essay I wrote before the election, I warned of this precise scenario.
The purpose behind Nixon's and Trump's bullying of news outlets is the same: to intimidate the outlets into self-censorship, creating a chilling effect on negative news to the administration's benefit. The strategy is working again, with multiple outlets and platforms settling winnable lawsuits on generous terms, overpaying for a documentary about Melania Trump, and preemptively complying with President Trump's wishes.
In a very direct way, the Trump administration seeks to unlock the shackles placed on the presidency in the aftermath of Nixon's betrayal of office. Prior to the scandals of the 1960s and 1970s, most people trusted in the probity and decency of the president and the federal government writ large. In particular, Nixon's lies and attempted cover-up of the Watergate scandal contributed to a decades long slide in public institutional trust. Congress passed a series of good governance reforms after Nixon's resignation in an attempt to reassure Americans that the federal government worked on their behalf, not merely to further the corrupt interests of whomever was in charge.
Those reforms included the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Inspector General Act of 1978. The first was meant to create a bright line between the legislative and executive branches regarding who gets to decide how taxpayer money is spent. Nixon had impounded money earmarked to improve New York City's aging, leaky sewers, a project that he opposed on political grounds. Both Congress and the Supreme Court put him in his place, reminding him that the Constitution vested such power in the Congress and not in the president.
Similarly, Trump's Office of Management and Budget attempted to freeze all federal funding while it made sure that the money was 'dedicated to advancing Administration priorities.' This was not only a bald challenge to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 but an exponentially greater claim of executive preeminence than any prior example of impoundment in U.S. history. Nixon was sanctioned for withholding money from a single congressional grant. By contrast, Trump attempted to withhold all federal financial assistance, implicating funds granted by dozens or even hundreds of acts of Congress.
The second post-Nixon good governance reform that Trump has challenged is the Inspector General Act of 1978, which created inspectors general as watchdogs against waste, fraud, and abuse at federal agencies. The office was designed to be insulated against executive manipulation by requiring Senate confirmation for these presidential appointees. Yet one of Trump's first acts as a second term president was to fire 17 inspectors general, a record number, and he did so in direct violation of the law requiring 30 days notice to Congress.
The administration's only proffered justification was a senior White House official saying that the fired inspector generals did not 'align' with the administration's goals. Trump later issued an executive order giving Elon Musk powers similar to that of an inspector general—to access agency data, interview personnel, and recommend policy changes—but one that sits above even agency heads, has authority over the entire spread of federal agencies, and which is completely unaccountable to Congress.
Trump is not just mirroring the executive abuses of Richard Nixon. He is surpassing them in every way. Nixon ordered the firing of one special prosecutor; Trump ordered the firing of 17 inspector generals. Nixon impounded money from one program; Trump impounded the entire federal financial aid apparatus. Nixon's threats to CBS got a few programs pulled; Trump's threats to CBS might get a corporate merger blocked. CREEP burglarized the contents of a few filing cabinets; DOGE has combed through entire agency databases filled with classified information.
Yet it was Nixon who faced a serious impeachment threat and resigned, while Trump has been impeached twice and avoided conviction twice, largely on party line votes. There is no individual difference between Nixon and Trump that can explain such a wide gulf in outcomes. Rather, it is a difference in the caliber of Republicans then and now.
As evidence of CREEP's skullduggery and Nixon's lies to his own party members mounted, multiple GOP senators, including conservative icon Barry Goldwater, approached the president and warned him that they would vote for impeachment if he refused to resign. This was not merely out of principle. As Massachusetts Sen. Edward Brooke put it, 'If he [Nixon] doesn't resign now, serious harm will come to the country and the party.' When Nixon finally agreed to leave, the CBS Evening News led off by saying, 'The GOP gave up today on Richard Nixon.'
By contrast, Republican congressional representatives today have little interest in holding Donald Trump to account. North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis acknowledged that Trump's impoundment fell 'afoul of the Constitution in the strictest sense' but it wasn't something anybody 'should bellyache about.' Sen. Chuck Grassley, who actually co-authored a law enhancing protections for inspectors general, meekly asked for 'further explanation from President Trump' after he unduly fired 17 of them. The country needs the likes of Goldwater and Brooke when all it has is Grassley and Tillis.
To be fair, the only politicians punished for Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election were the handful of Republicans who dared to call him out for it and who were either primaried out of office or chose not to run for reelection. Any remaining GOP politicians with a conscience know full well that it is they who would pay the ultimate political price for questioning Trump.
No, the ultimate blame for Trump's egregious abuses of power lies not with GOP politicians but with those who knowingly voted back into office a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, and an impeached insurrectionist. Trump is a small man who repeatedly expressed his intent to use the office of the president to settle petty, personal grievances and to wage bureaucratic war on his political foes. You cannot accuse him of not following through on those promises.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
15 minutes ago
- Associated Press
California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday over alleged defamation, saying the network knowingly aired false information about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump around the time the National Guard was sent Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleges Fox News anchor Jesse Watters edited out key information from a clip of Trump talking about calling Newsom, then used the edited video to assert that Newsom had lied about the two talking. Newsom is asking for $787 million in punitive damages in his lawsuit filed in Delaware court where Fox is incorporated. That's the same amount Fox agreed to pay in 2023 to settle a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. The company said Fox had repeatedly aired false allegations that its equipment had switched votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden during the 2020 election, and the discovery process of the lawsuit revealed Fox's efforts not to alienate conservatives in the network's audience in the wake of Biden's victory. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences -- just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom said in a statement. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet.' He asked a judge to order Fox News to stop broadcasting 'the false, deceptive, and fraudulent video and accompanying statements' that Newsom said falsely say he lied about when he had spoken to Trump regarding the situation in Los Angeles, where protests erupted on June 6 over Trump's immigration crackdown. Fox News called the lawsuit 'frivolous.' 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' the company said in a statement. The law makes it difficult to prove defamation, but some cases result in settlements and, no matter the disposition, can tie up news outlets in expensive legal fights. Particularly since taking office a second time, Trump has been aggressive in going after news organizations he feels has wronged him. He's involved in settlement talks over his lawsuit against CBS News about a '60 Minutes' interview last fall with Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. This week, Trump's lawyers threatened a lawsuit against CNN and The New York Times over their reporting of an initial assessment of damage to Iran's nuclear program from a U.S. bombing. Newsom's lawsuit centers on the details of a phone call with the president. Both Newsom and the White House have said the two spoke late at night on June 6 in California, which was already June 7 on the East Coast. Though the content of the call is not part of the lawsuit, Newsom has said the two never discussed Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard, which he announced the next day. Trump said the deployment was necessary to protect federal buildings from people protesting increased immigration arrests. Trump later announced he would also deploy Marines to the area. On June 10, when 700 Marines arrived in the Los Angeles area, Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago' about his decision to send troops. That day, Newsom posted on X that there had been no call. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom wrote. On the evening of June 10, the Watters Primetime show played a clip of Trump's statement about his call with Newsom but removed Trump's comment that the call was 'a day ago,' the lawsuit said. Watters also referred to call logs another Fox News reporter had posted online showing the phone call the two had on June 6. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' Watters asked on air, according to the lawsuit. The segment included text across the bottom of the screen that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.' Newsom's suit argues that by editing the material, Fox 'maliciously lied as a means to sabotage informed national discussion.' Precise details about when the call happened are important because the days when Trump deployed the Guard to Los Angeles despite Newsom's opposition 'represented an unprecedented moment,' Newsom's lawyers wrote in a letter to Fox demanding a retraction and on-air apology. 'History was occurring in real time. It is precisely why reporters asked President Trump the very question that prompted this matter: when did he last speak with Governor Newsom,' the letter said. ___ Associated Press journalist David Bauder contributed to this report.


The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge won't block DOGE access to sensitive government data
A federal judge ruled Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can continue to access sensitive data on millions of Americans at certain agencies, handing at least a temporary defeat to the labor unions that have sued to block the practice. Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court in D.C. declined to grant the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services, pending further proceedings in the case. The AFL-CIO and other unions filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent DOGE employees from accessing information such as medical files, financial histories, social security numbers, and addresses. In his ruling, Bates said that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of harm to merit an injunction, although he remained concerned about the prospect of DOGE's access. 'Absent evidence those personnel will imminently misuse or publicly disclose that information, the Court cannot say that irreparable harm will clearly occur before the Court can make a final determination on the merits,' he wrote. 'And without irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction cannot issue.' Still, Bates acknowledged the sensitivity of the data access, writing that the 'DOGE Affiliates have their hands on some of the most personal information individuals entrust to the government.' '[T]he Court's concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs' harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits,' he wrote. Bates asked the parties to propose a schedule for reaching summary judgment. The ruling is yet another setback for the labor unions, who first brought their suit in February and have been twice denied temporary restraining orders. Bates himself has ruled on a number of Trump-related cases and has at times drawn ire from the president. He has ordered the administration to restore certain government websites and ruled that Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Jenner & Block was unconstitutional. A host of lawsuits over DOGE's access to private government data are slowly playing out across federal courts. A federal judge ruled last week that the government must submit a report detailing DOGE's level of access to personally identifiable information at the Office of Personnel Management in response to another lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO. The Supreme Court earlier this month allowed DOGE to proceed in its efforts at the Social Security Administration, staying a preliminary injunction in a case brought by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.


CNBC
16 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump calls New York Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani 'a communist'
President Donald Trump on Friday called New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani "a communist," and said the Big Apple will become "a communistic city" if he is elected mayor in November. "I can't believe that's happening," Trump told reporters at the White House. "That's a terrible thing for our country, by the way." Trump's comments came three days after Mamdani — who is a democratic socialist, not a communist — scored a stunning victory over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the first round of the city's Democratic mayoral primary. Cuomo conceded to Mamdani late Tuesday night, acknowledging the strong likelihood that the next round of the primary's ranked-choice voting system would confirm Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, as the Democratic Party's nominee. Mamdani won the initial primary round despite the fact that many prominent Democrats had endorsed Cuomo. His victory has sent some major investors, New York business leaders and conservative news commentators into a tizzy over the now-very-real possibility that Mamdani, a three-term state assemblyman, will be the mayor of America's largest city. Mamdani's campaign platform calls for an increase in the corporate tax rate, higher taxes on the wealthy, a rent freeze and free buses. Trump acknowledged the alarm over Mandani among business leaders, saying they are "worried that somebody like this communist from New York someday gets elected." "He's a communist. We're going to go to a communistic city," said the president. "That's so bad for New York." CNBC has requested comment from Mamdani's campaign about Trump's remarks. Phillip Laffront, founder of the Coatue Management hedge fund, told CNBC on Wednesday that if Mamdani wins the general election, some wealthy investors could decide to move away from the city. "Some people are going to, for sure, go," Laffont said on "Squawk Box." Cuomo has not yet announced whether he plans to run for mayor this fall as an independent. New York City's current mayor, Eric Adams, is already seeking re-election as an independent candidate. Initially elected as a Democrat, Adams decided earlier this year to run for re-election as an independent, rather than ask fellow Democrats to nominate him on the party's ballot. Adams has become increasingly unpopular in New York after he was indicted in September on federal corruption charges brought by the Department of Justice when Democratic former President Joe Biden was still in office. After Trump took office in January, the DOJ asked a judge to dismiss the case against Adams, arguing that prosecuting the mayor would interfere with his ability to govern the city and to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, a priority for the new president. Seven federal prosecutors, including the acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney whose office was handling the case, resigned in protest over the DOJ's effort to drop Adams' prosecution. In April, District Court Judge Dale Hole dismissed the case against Adams with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be resurrected by the DOJ when Adams leaves office. In his order, Ho blasted the Justice Department, which had initially wanted the case dismissed without prejudice, which would allow prosecutors to re-open the case at some point, potentially. "Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions" by Adams, Ho wrote. The judge said that dismissing the case without prejudice "would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor's freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration."