Politics
During Watergate, the Supreme Court spoke with one voice. Can it do the same in Trump's case?
Fifty years ago this month, the U.S. Supreme Court was mulling a landmark case with profound implications for America’s democracy.
The question before justices in the Watergate tapes dispute was whether the president was above the law, shielded from prosecutors and a judge who were investigating a crime.
The court’s answer was clear, unflinching and unanimous.
A unanimous Supreme Court ruling helped resolve another constitutional crisis in 1974, when President Nixon claimed executive privilege over his White House tapes during the Watergate investigation.
(Associated Press)
The Constitution has no “absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity,” the court said in July 1974 in United States vs. Nixon. The president’s claim of executive privilege for his White House tapes, justices said, “cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of … the fair administration of criminal justice.”
Chief Justice Warren Burger, an appointee of then-President Nixon, wrote the court’s opinion. The Watergate case marked a high point for an often divided and contentious court and helped bring together a nation that was in the grip of a constitutional crisis.
The same basic issue is before the court again in Trump vs. United States: Are presidents above the law, immune forever from criminal charges for their actions in the White House? Or can they be prosecuted and held to account for breaking the law?
The decision figures to rewrite the law on the powers of the president and a cast a lasting shadow on the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Few are predicting the current court will rise to the occasion and deliver a clear, unanimous ruling.
The two sides of the debate drew a sharp contrast when the court heard arguments in late April.
“Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution,” Trump’s attorney John Sauer told the court, “there can be no presidency as we know it.”
Justice Department veteran Michael Dreeben replied that presidential immunity had been rejected in the past and should be rejected now.
“All former presidents have known that they could be indicted and convicted. And Watergate cemented that understanding,” Dreeben said, arguing on behalf of special counsel Jack Smith.
The Justice Department’s Michael Dreeben, speaking to justices on April 25 in this artist’s sketch, argued that “all former presidents have known that they could be indicted and convicted. And Watergate cemented that understanding.”
(Dana Verkouteren / Associated Press)
If the justices split along ideological lines, with the three liberals in dissent, the decision is sure to be condemned as partisan.
So the chief justice is likely to try to put together a majority that includes at least one liberal for what could be seen as a middle-ground position.
That would mean rejecting Trump’s claim of absolute immunity as well as Smith’s view that a former president has no shield from being prosecuted, even for truly official acts.
Trump was indicted last year on accusations of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election he’d lost to Joe Biden, including by making false claims of election fraud and encouraging thousands of his supporters to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when the House and Senate met to confirm Biden’s election.
Trump pleaded not guilty and insisted that his actions — taken while he was president — should be forever immune from prosecution.
Several Justices — some of whom have worked in Washington for decades — said during arguments in April that a president’s use of his “core executive powers” should be off-limits to future charges. They are wary of opening the door to politically driven criminal investigations.
Prior to Trump, no president had been indicted after leaving office, though at times charges were contemplated.
Could President Reagan have been prosecuted for the so-called Iran-Contra affair, a secret White House scheme to sell arms to Iran to support rebels in Nicaragua after Congress blocked their funding? Could President George H.W. Bush have been prosecuted for denying he knew about the scheme when he was vice president? While no such charges were brought, an independent counsel looked into those allegations.
President Reagan, seen in 1987, and his vice president and successor, George H.W. Bush, were investigated for possible charges in the Iran-Contra scandal, but were not among the 13 people indicted.
(Dennis Cook / Associated Press)
President Clinton was also threatened with prosecution after leaving office for having lied to investigators about his relationship with a White House intern.
To take a more recent example, could former President George W. Bush have been investigated or prosecuted by a Democratic administration for his responsibility in the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or over the alleged torture of prisoners at secret CIA sites in Europe?
The Obama administration did not pursue any such charges, but former White House lawyers, including now-Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, voiced concern about subjecting presidents to criminal charges after they leave office.
A critical question in the Trump case is: What qualifies as an “official” act by a president, and what sort of actions are considered private, even potentially criminal?
Most of the justices appeared to agree during arguments in April that Trump had been indicted over a private scheme, not for the use of any core executive powers.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, noted that the former president was accused of enlisting lawyers to submit “false claims of election fraud” and to send “fraudulent slates of presidential electors” to Congress.
“Sounds private,” she said.
Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett was among a majority of justices in April who seemed to agree that the former president had been indicted over a private scheme as a candidate, not for official presidential actions.
(Morry Gash / Associated Press)
Sauer, the Trump attorney, agreed.
“So you would not dispute those were private, and you wouldn’t raise a claim that they were official?,” Barrett asked.
Again, the lawyer agreed.
Later, when pressed by others, Sauer agreed with a lower court that had drawn a distinction between the conduct of an officeholder and that of a candidate for office. Prosecutors relied on that distinction, arguing that Trump was indicted for his actions as a failed candidate for reelection, not as an officeholder carrying out his official duties.
Barrett’s questions hinted at the possibility of a narrow ruling rejecting Trump’s claim of immunity from charges that he conspired to overturn his election defeat. The three liberal justices could agree with that.
But conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said they favored a broader shield for presidents when they use their official powers.
If that becomes the majority opinion, the court’s liberals may well refuse to go along. They voiced concern about shielding a president who abuses his power.
What if the president orders a “military coup?” Justice Elena Kagan asked during the arguments.
As commander in chief, if a president “told the generals: ‘I don’t feel like leaving office. I want to stage a coup,’” she asked, would that be an official act, shielded from future prosecution?
“It could well be,” Sauer replied.
John Sauer, right, with the former president and fellow Trump lawyer John Lauro in January, said in April that a president “could well be” be shielded from prosecution for ordering a military coup to stay in office.
(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)
So the problem facing the chief justice is that an opinion supporting a president’s immunity for official acts could drive the three liberals to dissent, while some conservatives may balk and refuse to join a ruling if it only holds that an ex-president can be prosecuted.
Four years ago, Roberts had a solid 7-2 majority rule against a Trump claim of “absolute immunity” and order the then-president to turn over financial and tax records to New York prosecutors.
The chief justice said the presidential supremacy claimed by Trump had never been part of America’s history.
“In our judicial system, the public has a right to every man’s evidence. Since the earliest days of the republic, ‘every man’ has included the president of the United States,” Roberts wrote in Trump vs. Vance. Two conservative justices, Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented.
Critics say the Roberts court has already delivered a victory of sorts for Trump by taking so long to decide on his immunity claim.
“This case goes to the heart of our democracy, and they’ve been slow-walking it,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy21 and a champion of campaign funding limits since the Watergate era. The court decided the Watergate case 16 days after the oral argument, he noted.
This year, by contrast, the justices have taken months to ponder a claim of immunity, a delay that has postponed Trump’s federal prosecutions and is almost certain to prevent a jury from deciding before the November election whether he conspired to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election.
“The court should never have taken this case,” Wertheimer said. “The voters were entitled to know whether Trump engaged in criminal conduct to overturn an election he lost.”
He’s not the only Watergate-era lawyer who is troubled. In 1974, Philip Lacovara, as counsel to the special prosecutor, urged the Supreme Court to reject Nixon’s claim of executive privilege with a “definitive” ruling. Nixon had hinted he may defy the decision if the justices were divided.
Vice President Gerald R. Ford, in the foreground at Nixon’s final Cabinet meeting before his August 1974 resignation, would go on to pardon his former boss ahead of his “possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States.”
(David Hume Kennerly / Getty Images)
Just 16 days after the court ordered him to disclose the tapes, Nixon resigned. A month later, President Ford granted him a full pardon, after saying his predecessor was facing “possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States.”
In a recent interview, Lacovara warned against making a former president immune from criminal prosecution, noting that history has shown that sometimes strong men with no moral compass can win election.
“That’s why this could be the most dangerous decision the court has ever made,” he said of Trump’s case. “Once you crack it open and say the president gets to violate some laws, there’s no way to constrain it. You have started down a very dangerous road.”
Politics
Israel shares intelligence warning Iran plotted new assassination attempt against Trump: report
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Israel recently shared intelligence with the United States indicating Iran had developed a fresh plan to assassinate President Donald Trump, according to a Wall Street Journal report Thursday citing people familiar with the matter.
The reported intelligence would mark an escalation in the longstanding threats against Trump, who Iran has repeatedly vowed to retaliate against over the 2020 U.S. strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
The White House referred Fox News Digital to Trump’s remarks Wednesday when asked about the report.
TRUMP FACES UNPRECEDENTED THIRD ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT
President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at the NATO Summit in Ankara, Turkey, July 8, 2026. Trump addressed threats against his life after a report said Israel shared intelligence with the United States about an alleged new Iranian assassination plot. (Kerem Uzel/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“They want to take out the U.S. leader — me. I’m on whatever list. I saw this morning I’m on every single one of their lists,” Trump said. “And, so far, I guess I’ve been a bit lucky, but maybe that doesn’t last very long. These are evil, sick people. And we have to root out that cancer. That cancer. You know what you do? You’ve got to cut out cancer early. And that’s the way I feel.”
Fox News Digital has also reached out to Israel’s Embassy in Washington and Iran’s Mission to the United Nations for comment.
The Journal reported the intelligence surfaced as Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have diverged in recent weeks over how to proceed after last month’s conflict with Iran. Netanyahu has advocated for continuing military pressure on Tehran, while Trump has sought to preserve a fragile ceasefire after U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
NETANYAHU REJECTS REPORTS OF A RIFT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, SAYS THE TWO REMAIN ALIGNED ON IRAN
President Donald Trump, left, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House March 25, 2019. The leaders spoke Thursday after The Wall Street Journal reported Israel had shared intelligence with the United States about an alleged new Iranian plot targeting Trump. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
Trump and Netanyahu spoke Thursday and agreed to continue coordination between the two countries, according to a statement from Netanyahu’s office, which said Trump also updated the Israeli leader on recent U.S. activity in the Gulf.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump. (Avi Ohayon/GPO)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Iranian mourners at the funeral for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei chanted for Trump’s death and displayed a banner that said, “We Will Kill Trump,” according to the Journal.
Iran has publicly vowed for years to retaliate against Trump over the U.S. operation that killed Soleimani, the former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, in Baghdad in January 2020.
WASHINGTON — A tentative armistice between the United States and Iran reached less than a month ago appeared all but dead Wednesday after the two sides traded fresh military strikes, and as President Trump directed further attacks on the Islamic Republic.
The escalation marked a dramatic turn after the Trump administration spent weeks selling a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran that proved controversial across the political aisle, lifting oil sanctions and a naval blockade on Iran in exchange for the promise of talks over the status of the Strait of Hormuz and its decades-old nuclear program.
Now, speaking to reporters at the NATO summit in Turkey, Trump said he believed the truce — which diplomats describe as a memorandum of understanding — was “over” and that it was a “waste of time” dealing with Iranian leadership.
“They’re scum. They’re sick people,” Trump said of Iranian leaders, whom he had characterized last month as “very rational people” and “very nice to deal with.”
The president’s dim views of the ceasefire agreement’s fate were shared by Iran’s foreign ministry, which issued a statement on Wednesday saying the American attacks, the reinstatement of a U.S. naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, and Israel’s continuing attacks in Lebanon rendered “important and fundamental” parts of the deal “ineffective.”
The truce’s unraveling was underscored by Trump ordering the U.S. military to launch a series of strikes against Iran on Wednesday afternoon to “further degrade their ability to threaten” the commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
“The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews freely navigating a vital international waterway,” U.S. Central Command said in a statement on social media.
Earlier in the day, Trump signaled that the United States planned to “hit them hard” and floated the possibility of taking over Kharg Island, which is vital to Iran’s economy. His remarks quickly prompted oil prices to rise and global stock markets to fall, a worry that Trump acknowledged but which did not seem to sway his decision-making in relation to Iran.
“If we hit Iran, oil goes up a little bit, it is all right,” Trump said. He later added that the United States may “do some other thing that could lift it a little bit, but I don’t think it’s gonna lift it a lot at all.”
As Trump signals the continuation of fighting, his administration has been seeking more than $67 billion in funding to cover expenses related to the Iran war, a request that Congress has not yet approved as lawmakers have been split over the president’s handling of the conflict.
“The American people are paying the price for Trump’s total failure in Iran,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement Wednesday. “Our troops are back in harm’s way and high gas costs are continuing to punish working families.”
The president’s stance on the war marked the latest setback to a fragile truce that has barely held since the 14-page agreement was signed June 17, as the U.S. and Iran engaged over the last few weeks in cycles of attacks and counterattacks.
Trump was noticeably angrier at Iran on Wednesday as he cast doubt over the deal. Last month, Trump had complimented Iranian leadership for trying to reach a peace deal and celebrated the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping route for the world’s oil and gas. But based on his remarks, it was clear he was out of patience.
“I am not happy with them,” Trump said. “They’re cuckoo. There’s something wrong with these people. For 47 years, they’ve been the bully of the Middle East and they are not the bully anymore. They are not the bully anymore.”
Trump expressed frustration with Iran’s negotiators and their resistance to abiding by U.S. demands to reopen the strait. When asked if he intended to send troops to Iran, the president dismissed the idea.
“Why would I go in now?” Trump said. “I’d go in when they’re completely eliminated or an agreement is made.”
Still, the president kept the door open for negotiations, saying that his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner “want to negotiate.”
“They’re good people, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, but they have to come back to me,” Trump said. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a waste of time dealing with [the Iranians]. They’re liars.”
The latest breakdown to the ceasefire followed a now-familiar chain reaction of tit-for-tat attacks, starting with a series of strikes on three oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, including a Qatari vessel carrying natural gas, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center.
The Qatari tanker was off the coast of Oman when it was hit and caught fire, the maritime monitor said, in what experts say was a move to thwart ships attempting to use an alternate transit route to the one Iran specified. Iran did not claim responsibility, but a report on Iranian state television said the Qatari tanker came under attack after ignoring warnings to turn back.
The two other vessels were damaged but were able to continue to their destination, according to the U.K. group.
Qatar, which has played a vital role in facilitating negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, condemned the attack on its tanker as “unacceptable.”
The U.S. responded with a wave of strikes against more than 80 Iranian targets aimed at “impos[ing] heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway,” according to a statement from U.S. Central Command. That tally included roughly 60 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps small boats in the strait.
Iranian state media said U.S. strikes targeted Sirik, Qeshm Island and Bushehr and Bandar Abbas, while a U.S. drone strike on the port city of Mahshahr killed one Revolutionary Guard member.
Ahead of the strikes, the White House revoked the 60-day temporary license given to Tehran to sell and deliver oil during the truce.
Iran’s military countered with its own strikes on 85 U.S. military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait; it also shot down an MQ-9 drone, according to a statement on Wednesday.
Kuwait said its military intercepted two ballistic missiles and 13 drones, but that none had resulted in material damage or casualties.
Global oil prices surged 6% on news of Trump’s reversal on the deal, rising to more than $78 a barrel, down from the peak during the war but still above prewar levels.
The renewed violence appeared to have little effect on the funeral for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in an Israeli strike on Feb. 28, in the war’s opening hours.
The funeral, a days-long period of mourning, is set to end on Thursday, when Khamenei’s body will return from Iraq to be buried in the city of Mashhad, his birthplace. Negotiations were to begin once more.
In his remarks Wednesday, Trump said Iranian leaders had asked for a “timeout” to attend the funeral, and that he had promised not to kill them.
“And I said give it to them, and they start shooting missiles,” Trump said.
Whether those talks — which were meant to deal with the thorniest issues between the two countries, including the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program — will go ahead remains unclear. Iran, for its part, maintained a defiant attitude.
“The era of bullying and extortion is over,” wrote Mohammad Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliamentary speaker. “It leads nowhere. We don’t fold.”
Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to the supreme leader, posted on X that Trump’s policy had “driven the region towards fire.”
“We had previously warned that the region is not a place for the political gambling of small countries, and we have repeatedly proven that adventures are met with an immediate response,” he wrote.
He added that the Axis of Resistance — a reference to Iran’s network of allied groups in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen — would not be “silent against humiliation and adventurism” and has “its finger on the trigger.”
Bulos reported from Beirut and Ceballos from Washington.
Politics
Omar’s disclosures erased millions, leaving her with potential negative net worth. She won’t explain why.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., refused to address her revised financial disclosures that could imply she has a negative net worth after the progressive lawmaker dramatically reducing the reported value of assets tied to her husband’s business ventures.
“Can you tell us if your husband still has the consulting business and the wine business?” Fox News Digital asked Omar.
The congresswoman stayed silent as she was repeatedly questioned, after previously telling Fox News Digital that the original filing — showing Omar’s reported assets reducing by as much as $29.9 million — was inaccurate and “incomplete” information.
ILHAN OMAR’S OFFICE SAYS SHE’S ‘NOT A MILLIONAIRE’ AFTER $30M FILING REVISED DOWN TO UNDER $100K: REPORT
US Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, speaks during a press conference with family members of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh as members of Congress call for US investigations into Israel’s actions and reintroduce the Justice for Shireen Act, outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC, May 18, 2023. The Al Jazeera journalist, who was a dual US citizen, was killed on May 11, 2022. The Israeli army later admitted one of its soldiers likely shot the reporter. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
The controversy surrounding Omar’s finances began when a 2024 financial report estimated that Omar and her husband possessed between $6 million and $30 million in assets, all while the Minnesota fraud scandal within the Somali community was beginning to come to fruition.
A more recent 2025 financial disclosure report shows Omar’s revised value of shared assets between her and husband to sit at a maximum of $125,000 — a multi-million-dollar drop from the year prior. The lower estimate of their assets, $20,000, compared to the low and high debt estimates, $30,000 and $100,000, would imply the Minnesota Democrat could have a negative net worth.
Both her and her husband have separate debts, each ranging somewhere between $15,000 and $50,000 — from her own student loans and her husband’s credit card debt, according to the disclosures.
WATCH: OMAR SILENT WHEN CONFRONTED ON ALLEGED TIES TO MASSIVE MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL
RICHFIELD, MN – AUGUST 08: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (C) campaigns with her husband Tim Mynett (R) at the Richfield Farmers Market on August 8, 2020 in Richfield, Minnesota. Omar is hoping to retain her seat as the representative for Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District in next week’s primary election. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
The biggest change in the documents involved Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett. His reported ownership interests in both his winery and venture capital advisory firm, which were previously valued in the millions of dollars, are listed with no value now.
In Omar’s 2024 financial disclosure records, Mynett’s share in his winery was valued between $1 million and $5 million, and his share at the venture capital advisory firm was valued between $5 million and $25 million. Now, his equity interests are both listed at $0.
Omar’s office previously told Fox News Digital that Mynett has partners in both businesses and said the earlier disclosure mistakenly reflected the businesses’ total equity rather than his ownership interest. The office also said the original filing listed assets without accounting for liabilities.
VANCE REFERS TIM WALZ, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DOJ FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OVER STATE’S ALLEGED FRAUD
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., has publicly voiced his interest in the Ethics Committee opening an investigation into Omar’s personal finances after the 2025 financial reports came out showing the possibility of a $29 million drop in her net worth.
Vice President JD Vance also has previously said the U.S. Department of Justice will be opening a probe into her alleged fraud as part of the administration’s anti-fraud taskforce that he spearheads, though no formal investigations have been shared with the public at this time.
Omar has been reluctant to answer Fox News Digital’s questions about her financial fallout and potential probes to be opened against her.
The Minnesota lawmaker similarly dodged answering any of Fox News Digital’s questions just last month about the revised disclosures.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“There’s also the possibility that it might rain on this sunny day,” Omar replied without responding directly to the content of the question.
Fox News Digital’s Robert Schmad contributed to this report.
-
Lifestyle15 minutes agoSmithsonian chief emphasizes ‘accuracy and integrity’ after White House report
-
Technology27 minutes agoMicrosoft’s carbon emissions went up 25 percent last year
-
World30 minutes agoJailed Catholic woman’s hunger strike highlights Iran religious persecution — US demands action
-
Politics35 minutes agoIsrael shares intelligence warning Iran plotted new assassination attempt against Trump: report
-
Health42 minutes agoParasitic infection causing ‘explosive’ stomach illness exceeds 1,000 cases in northern state
-
Sports44 minutes agoLondon descends into disorder as Morocco fans flood streets after World Cup elimination by France
-
Technology50 minutes agoGoogle turns old phones into cloud servers
-
Business57 minutes agoWaymo is starting robotaxi service in San Diego
