In the wake of the Watergate scandal, there has been a long-standing institutional norm emphasizing the importance of independence from White House influence at both the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This norm dictates that while a president can establish overarching policies, they should refrain from intervening in particular criminal investigations, decisions to prosecute or drop charges against individuals, or the appointment and removal of special counsels. Exceptions to this rule are rare and typically involve situations with potential implications for foreign policy. This principle is especially pertinent when it comes to cases that may intersect with a president’s personal or political interests, such as investigations into themselves or their political adversaries.
However, questions persist regarding the extent of a president’s legal authority in directing specific actions within these agencies. It raises the following legal and governance queries:
Presidential Authority: Is the president legally empowered to instruct the Justice Department to initiate or terminate particular criminal investigations, pursue or dismiss charges against specific individuals, or appoint or dismiss a special counsel? Similarly, does the president possess the authority to instruct the IRS to commence or conclude specific audits?
Good Governance: Irrespective of what the law allows a president to do theoretically, there is an important issue of good governance. Would a presidential candidate commit, if elected, to upholding the post-Watergate norm, which dictates that presidents avoid meddling in specific law enforcement determinations?
This issue has been a topic of substantial debate and scrutiny in recent political discourse, particularly in the context of preserving the checks and balances integral to the U.S. government’s democratic framework.
Presidential candidates have varied in their responses to these questions. Some emphasize the importance of preserving the institutional independence of these agencies and committing to adhering to the established norm. Others may argue that the president should have the authority to shape law enforcement priorities and decisions, emphasizing the executive’s role in setting policy.
As the election season progresses, voters and observers are likely to closely monitor the positions and commitments of presidential candidates on these crucial matters relating to the independence of law enforcement agencies and the role of the president in their operations. The outcome of this debate may have significant implications for the balance of power and accountability within the U.S. government.