What If Nixon Never Resigned?

The Actual History

The Watergate scandal began on June 17, 1972, when five men were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. Initially appearing to be a simple burglary, subsequent investigations revealed a complex web of political espionage, sabotage, and attempts to undermine the democratic process, all connected to President Richard Nixon's re-election campaign.

The scandal unfolded gradually. In January 1973, the Watergate burglars were convicted, but questions about higher involvement persisted. Throughout 1973, evidence mounted that Nixon's administration had attempted to cover up its connection to the break-in. The scandal deepened when former White House Counsel John Dean testified before the Senate Watergate Committee in June 1973, implicating Nixon and his closest advisers in the cover-up. The revelations grew more damning when former White House aide Alexander Butterfield disclosed the existence of a secret White House taping system that had recorded many of Nixon's conversations.

The infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" of October 20, 1973—when Nixon ordered the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, prompting the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus—heightened public outrage and intensified calls for impeachment. In response to public pressure, Nixon appointed a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who continued the investigation.

The smoking gun came on July 24, 1974, when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in United States v. Nixon that the president must turn over the subpoenaed White House tapes to the special prosecutor. Three days later, the House Judiciary Committee passed the first of three articles of impeachment, charging Nixon with obstruction of justice. Two additional articles—for abuse of power and contempt of Congress—followed shortly after.

The released tapes contained the devastating "smoking gun" conversation from June 23, 1972, just days after the Watergate break-in, in which Nixon and his Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman discussed using the CIA to obstruct the FBI's investigation. This revelation destroyed Nixon's remaining political support, including among Republicans who had steadfastly defended him.

Facing certain impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate, Nixon announced his resignation on August 8, 1974, effective noon the following day. He became the first and only U.S. president to resign from office. Vice President Gerald Ford succeeded him and, in a controversial move, pardoned Nixon of all crimes he may have committed as president on September 8, 1974, effectively ending any possibility of criminal prosecution.

The Watergate scandal had profound consequences for American politics and society. It led to major reforms in campaign finance and government ethics laws. It damaged public trust in government, creating a lasting skepticism toward political institutions and leaders. The scandal also enhanced the power and prestige of investigative journalism, with Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein becoming iconic figures for their role in uncovering the scandal.

In the years that followed, Nixon worked to rehabilitate his image, positioning himself as an elder statesman and foreign policy expert. He wrote several books and offered counsel to subsequent presidents until his death in 1994. While he achieved some measure of redemption, particularly in foreign policy circles, the disgrace of Watergate permanently tarnished his legacy and ensured that his presidency would be defined more by its scandalous end than by its policy accomplishments.

The Point of Divergence

What if Richard Nixon had refused to resign in August 1974? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Nixon, defiant to the end, decided to fight impeachment through to the Senate trial, dramatically altering the course of American political history.

Several plausible paths could have led to this divergence:

Scenario 1: Strategic Miscalculation
After the "smoking gun" tape was released, Nixon might have fundamentally misread the political landscape, believing he could still survive politically. Perhaps his closest remaining advisers, particularly Alexander Haig, reinforced this misconception rather than encouraging resignation. Nixon, always a fighter by nature, might have decided that his legacy would be better served by forcing Congress to remove him than by voluntarily stepping down.

Scenario 2: Constitutional Gambit
Nixon, a lawyer by training, might have opted for a high-risk constitutional strategy, arguing that a sitting president could not be criminally prosecuted and challenging the impeachment process itself. He might have calculated that by forcing a full Senate trial, he could transform the proceedings into a partisan battle that would divide the nation and potentially save his presidency.

Scenario 3: Foreign Policy Leverage
Given his significant foreign policy achievements, Nixon might have attempted to use ongoing international crises as a shield. He could have argued that removing him during delicate negotiations with the Soviet Union or China would jeopardize national security, hoping that Cold War tensions would make legislators hesitant to remove a president experienced in international affairs.

Scenario 4: Pure Obstinacy
Perhaps the simplest explanation: Nixon's well-documented paranoia and persecution complex might have intensified as the walls closed in. In this scenario, Nixon simply refused to give his enemies the satisfaction of forcing him out, choosing instead to go down fighting rather than surrender.

In each of these scenarios, instead of delivering his resignation speech on August 8, 1974, Nixon appears before the American people with a different message: a defiant challenge to Congress to remove him through the constitutional process, a declaration that he will defend himself in a Senate trial, and an assertion that the American people—not Congress—should determine his fate. With this decision, the nation braces for its first-ever Senate impeachment trial of a sitting president, setting in motion a constitutional crisis without precedent in American history.

Immediate Aftermath

Constitutional Crisis Unfolds

Nixon's refusal to resign immediately plunges the United States into uncharted constitutional territory. The House of Representatives, which had been preparing articles of impeachment, proceeds with formal impeachment votes by mid-August 1974. All three articles—obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress—pass with significant bipartisan support, with many Republicans who had previously defended Nixon now voting against him.

The Nixon White House transforms into a bunker mentality. Staffers resign in waves, not wanting to be associated with what many view as a doomed administration. Nixon struggles to maintain a functioning executive branch, with many positions unfilled or filled by increasingly inexperienced loyalists. James St. Clair, Nixon's defense counsel, begins assembling a legal team for the impending Senate trial, while White House operations focus almost exclusively on the president's defense rather than governance.

A Paralyzed Government

Day-to-day governance suffers tremendously in the fall of 1974. Nixon, preoccupied with his defense and increasingly isolated, delegates most executive functions to a skeleton staff. International relationships become strained as foreign leaders hesitate to negotiate with an administration that could collapse at any moment. Domestic initiatives stall completely.

The economic conditions, already difficult with inflation at over 11% in 1974, deteriorate further. The stock market, which had been volatile throughout the Watergate scandal, experiences a sharp decline as investors react to prolonged uncertainty. The Federal Reserve, trying to maintain independence, struggles to manage monetary policy amid the political chaos.

The Senate Trial

Chief Justice Warren Burger presides over the Senate trial, which begins in October 1974. The proceedings dominate national attention, with television networks providing daily coverage. The trial itself becomes a media spectacle unprecedented in American history, drawing higher viewership than even the lunar landing.

Nixon's defense team pursues multiple strategies:

Challenging the constitutionality of impeaching a president for actions taken to protect national security
Arguing that the evidence doesn't rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Attempting to discredit witnesses like John Dean and others
Claiming executive privilege over additional evidence

However, the "smoking gun" tape proves insurmountable. Republican senators, meeting privately, conclude that Nixon's actions are indefensible. Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott and Senator Barry Goldwater, once Nixon supporters, lead a delegation to the White House in late October, informing the president that he lacks the votes to avoid conviction.

The Conviction and Removal

On November 15, 1974, the Senate votes 68-32 to convict Nixon on the first article of impeachment, with 19 Republicans joining all Democrats in voting for conviction—well beyond the required two-thirds majority. Similar votes follow on the second and third articles. For the first time in American history, a president is removed from office through the constitutional impeachment process.

Nixon delivers a bitter farewell address from the White House, comparing himself to Lincoln and claiming that history would vindicate him. He departs the White House by helicopter the following day, while Gerald Ford takes the oath of office as the 38th President of the United States.

Ford's Compromised Presidency

Gerald Ford assumes the presidency under significantly different circumstances than in our timeline. Rather than being seen as the healer who helped the nation move past Watergate through Nixon's pardon, Ford enters office as the direct beneficiary of Nixon's removal. This creates immediate legitimacy challenges.

Without the option to pardon Nixon (who has already been removed through constitutional means), Ford faces intense pressure regarding potential criminal prosecution of the former president. The Justice Department, seeking to reassert its independence, proceeds with criminal investigations, ultimately leading to indictments against Nixon for obstruction of justice and other charges in early 1975.

The 1974 Midterm Elections

The November 1974 midterm elections, coming immediately after Nixon's removal, become a referendum on the Republican Party. The results are even more devastating than in our timeline, with Democrats gaining upwards of 75 seats in the House (compared to 49 in actual history) and 7-8 additional Senate seats. This Democratic supermajority fundamentally alters the balance of power in Washington, giving progressives their strongest position since the Johnson administration.

This electoral wipeout creates immediate consequences for Ford's presidency. With a veto-proof Democratic majority in both houses, Ford finds himself largely powerless to stop a wave of post-Watergate reforms and progressive legislation. The midterms also bring to prominence a new generation of Democratic politicians who built their campaigns around government reform and anti-corruption measures.

Long-term Impact

The Transformation of the American Presidency

The Weakened Executive (1970s-1980s)

The spectacle of a president being forcibly removed from office fundamentally alters the American presidency. Congress, emboldened by successfully removing Nixon, asserts its authority more aggressively throughout the Ford administration and beyond. The post-Watergate reforms in this timeline are significantly more extensive:

The War Powers Act receives substantial strengthening amendments
New independent prosecutor statutes with broader powers are enacted
Congressional oversight of intelligence agencies becomes more invasive
Budget authority shifts further toward Congress

President Ford, hamstrung by these constraints and lacking electoral legitimacy, struggles to accomplish much during his shortened tenure. When Jimmy Carter wins the 1976 election (defeating Ford by a wider margin than in our timeline), he inherits a presidency with diminished powers and heightened congressional oversight.

The concept of the "Imperial Presidency" that emerged during the Nixon years is thoroughly rejected, replaced by what scholars call the "Constrained Presidency" era. This institutional shift persists through the 1980s, fundamentally altering the balance of power between branches.

The Partisan Impeachment Tool (1990s-2000s)

By the 1990s, however, this dynamic begins to shift. The successful impeachment and removal of Nixon normalizes impeachment as a political tool in a way that didn't occur in our timeline. Rather than being seen as an extraordinary remedy, impeachment becomes weaponized in partisan conflicts.

When Bill Clinton faces impeachment in 1998-1999 in this alternate timeline, the precedent of Nixon's removal raises the stakes dramatically. The Clinton impeachment becomes less about the underlying offenses and more about whether Democrats can prevent the removal of a second president. The heightened partisan nature of the process further damages public confidence in government institutions.

Criminal Prosecution of Nixon

Nixon's criminal trial in 1975-1976 becomes one of the most watched legal proceedings in American history. Despite his legal team's efforts to delay the trial and challenge its legitimacy, Nixon ultimately faces a jury in federal court. His conviction on multiple felony counts and subsequent sentencing to prison (even if later commuted by President Carter on compassionate grounds) creates a powerful precedent that no American is above the law—not even a former president.

This precedent has significant ramifications for future administrations. Presidents become more cautious about potential legal exposure, leading to more robust compliance systems within the White House. However, it also contributes to increasingly acrimonious transitions of power, with incoming administrations more willing to investigate their predecessors' actions.

Political Realignment and Party Evolution

The Republican Wilderness Years

The Republican Party suffers a much deeper and more prolonged period of decline than in our timeline. The spectacle of a Republican president being forcibly removed from office, followed by criminal conviction, devastates the party's brand. The 1970s and early 1980s become known as the "Republican Wilderness Years," with Democrats dominating congressional majorities and state governments throughout this period.

This extended time in the political wilderness accelerates ideological shifts within the GOP. By necessity, the party distances itself more completely from Nixon's legacy. The rise of Ronald Reagan still occurs, but under different circumstances—presenting himself as the anti-Nixon who will restore integrity to both the presidency and the Republican Party.

When Reagan eventually wins the presidency in 1980 (after a single Carter term, as in our timeline), his administration is marked by a greater emphasis on ethical governance and transparency than in our timeline. The lingering specter of Nixon's removal forces Reagan to govern more cautiously regarding executive authority.

The Democrats' Progressive Turn

The Democratic supermajorities in Congress following the 1974 midterms enable the passage of significant progressive legislation that didn't occur in our timeline. This includes:

More comprehensive healthcare reform (though short of universal coverage)
Stronger environmental protections and energy policies
More robust financial regulations
Campaign finance reforms with stricter limits

These legislative achievements shift the center of American politics somewhat leftward through the late 1970s and 1980s. The Democratic Party, emboldened by its role in removing Nixon and its subsequent electoral successes, embraces its progressive wing more fully than in our timeline.

Media and Investigative Journalism

The already significant impact of Watergate on journalism is amplified in this timeline. With a president not only forced to resign but actually removed through impeachment and later criminally convicted, investigative journalism gains even greater prestige and cultural significance.

Major news organizations invest more heavily in investigative units through the 1980s and 1990s. The tradition of adversarial press-government relations becomes more deeply entrenched. Public trust in media institutions remains higher than in our timeline, though still declining over time.

This enhanced prestige of investigative journalism accelerates technological developments in news gathering and distribution. When the internet emerges in the 1990s, traditional news organizations—still riding the wave of post-Watergate credibility—adapt more successfully to the digital transition than in our timeline.

International Relations and the Cold War

Nixon's removal has significant international consequences. The perception of American political instability emboldens Soviet leaders, who take a harder line in détente negotiations during the Ford administration. Arms limitation talks stall, and tensions in global hotspots increase.

The Soviet Union misreads the American political turmoil as a sign of greater systemic weakness than actually exists. This miscalculation leads Soviet leadership to overextend in Afghanistan, Africa, and Latin America in the late 1970s and early 1980s. When Reagan takes office, the Cold War intensifies more rapidly than in our timeline, though the eventual Soviet collapse still occurs, possibly accelerated by their strategic overreach.

China, concerned about American stability after Nixon's dramatic downfall, slows the pace of normalization. The delayed development of U.S.-China relations alters global trade patterns through the 1980s and 1990s, with significant economic implications.

Political Culture and Public Trust (Present Day)

By 2025 in this alternate timeline, American political culture shows significant differences from our world:

Public expectations for presidential ethics and transparency are substantially higher
Impeachment has been used against more presidents, becoming a more normalized (if still extraordinary) constitutional remedy
The legislative branch maintains somewhat greater power relative to the executive
Political polarization persists but manifests differently, with greater emphasis on ethical governance versus corruption
Presidential campaigns emphasize character and integrity credentials more prominently

However, the weaponization of impeachment in partisan conflicts has created its own damage to democratic norms. As in our timeline, public cynicism about government remains high, but for somewhat different reasons—not because presidents are perceived as being above accountability, but because accountability mechanisms themselves have become overtly partisan battlegrounds.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Eleanor Hammond, Professor of Presidential Studies at Georgetown University, offers this perspective: "Nixon's decision to fight impeachment rather than resign represents the road not taken in American history. Had he forced the Senate to convict and remove him, we would likely see a presidency significantly more constrained by congressional oversight today. Presidential power would have developed along a different trajectory, with the post-Watergate reforms cutting deeper and lasting longer. The psychological impact of actually removing a president—not just threatening to do so—would have fundamentally altered the relationship between Congress and the White House for generations."

Professor Thomas Liu, Constitutional Law Scholar at Yale Law School, suggests: "The most profound difference in a timeline where Nixon was actually removed would be in our understanding of impeachment itself. In our history, impeachment remains largely theoretical—a threat rarely carried to completion. Had the Senate actually convicted Nixon, impeachment would have transformed from an extraordinary remedy into a recognized, if still serious, constitutional check. This would have lower thresholds for its use, making impeachment more common but potentially less effective as a deterrent. Every subsequent president would govern knowing that removal is not just a constitutional theory but a demonstrated reality."

Dr. Maria Vasquez, Political Historian at the University of Texas, notes: "The criminal prosecution and conviction of Nixon following his removal would have created a clear precedent that presidents can and will face legal consequences for their actions. This would have dramatically affected how subsequent administrations operated, particularly regarding document preservation, executive privilege claims, and potential pardons. We would likely see more robust White House counsel offices and compliance systems. The criminalization of political disputes would have accelerated, but so too would the expectation that no one—not even a former president—is immune from legal accountability."