Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What were the consequences for those who were on Nixon's enemies list?
Executive summary
Nixon’s “Enemies List” was a small, secret White House memo of 20 people and a broader “master list” compiled by aides that aimed to “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies,” and the administration tried—most notably via the IRS—to harass opponents but largely failed to apply blanket federal punishment to those named [1] [2]. The list’s public exposure during Watergate fueled bipartisan outrage, increased public distrust in Nixon’s White House, and became one strand of political fallout that pushed investigations and impeachment momentum toward Nixon’s 1974 resignation [3] [4].
1. The list’s intent: weaponize federal power
The original memo, drafted by George T. Bell for Charles Colson and sent to White House Counsel John Dean in 1971, explicitly described tactics to “maximize the fact of our incumbency” and to “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies,” which framed the project as an administrative effort to exploit government agencies against critics [1] [5]. John Dean later echoed that language in testimony and memos that elevated the program from note to policy impulse within the White House [5].
2. What actually happened to people named—audits and harassment attempts
Nixon aides repeatedly discussed using the Internal Revenue Service and other federal levers to intimidate or punish opponents; the administration did attempt to prompt audits and other inquiries [2] [5]. However, key officials resisted. IRS Commissioner Donald C. Alexander refused to launch audits based solely on the list, and historians note that while several McGovern donors were audited in 1973, “none on the list were audited” as a direct, proven consequence [1]. Independent reporting and curated archives likewise document episodes of harassment of some journalists (e.g., Dan Schorr) and other opponents, but the existence of a single uniform federal crackdown on everyone named is not supported by the record provided [6] [5].
3. Legal and political consequences for Nixon’s team, not just the targets
Exposure mattered more for the perpetrators than for most targets: revelation of the list during congressional hearings intensified public and bipartisan condemnation and fed into the larger Watergate investigations that ultimately led to impeachment proceedings and Nixon’s resignation in 1974 [3] [4]. The political liability created by the enemies project weakened Nixon’s standing; conservative allies such as William F. Buckley Jr. condemned it as “proto‑fascism,” illustrating the cross‑partisan revulsion that followed [4].
4. Varied experiences: some individuals faced real pressure, others not
Available reporting stresses variation: some people named experienced harassment or intrusive government attention, while others were unaffected or experienced only reputational harm from publicity [6] [5]. The master list compiled by Colson’s office reportedly expanded the scope, and targeted categories included journalists, politicians, fundraisers and public figures—some of whom later described being hounded, while others received no documented punitive action tied directly to the memo [7] [6].
5. Institutional pushback mattered—limits to presidential reach
A decisive reason the list did not translate into wholesale federal repression was institutional resistance. Treasury and IRS officials, most visibly Donald Alexander, balked at political misuse of audits; accounts credit figures like Treasury Secretary George Shultz for refusing illegal or politically motivated orders, which constrained what the White House could carry out [1] [8]. This pushback underscores how bureaucratic norms and individual officials mitigated the plan’s worst potential outcomes [8] [9].
6. Legacy: political weaponization and public trust
The enemies list left a dual legacy: for victims, it was a chilling symbol of executive overreach and, in some cases, a source of direct harassment; for American politics, its revelation helped erode public trust in Nixon’s administration and became a cautionary tale about mixing intelligence, law enforcement and partisan aims [3] [2]. The episode also seeded cultural references and ongoing comparisons in later debates about politicized government power [1] [8].
Limitations and unanswered details
Primary sources show attempts and intent to target opponents and some documented harassment, but available sources do not provide a comprehensive, name‑by‑name catalogue proving direct federal punishments for every person on the lists; reporting emphasizes a mixed record of attempted abuses, some isolated harms, significant institutional resistance, and political repercussions for the administration [1] [6] [3].