What reforms or legal mechanisms could strengthen accountability for presidents who break the law?
Executive summary
Congress and reform groups have proposed multiple statutory fixes—amending ethics law to “close the presidential loophole,” strengthening disclosure and OGE enforcement, and passing bills like the Protecting Our Democracy Act—while some lawmakers seek a constitutional amendment to erase recent broad claims of presidential immunity [1] [2] [3]. Advocacy groups and scholars add structural and procedural options: clearer statutory duties to “take care,” enhanced subpoena enforcement, whistleblower protections, and GAO oversight to create practical enforcement levers short of criminal prosecution [4] [5] [6].
1. Reinforce civil and ethics law to cover the president
Lawmakers and policy centers argue Congress can eliminate the “presidential loophole” by amending federal conflicts-of-interest and ethics statutes so the president and vice president are explicitly covered, empower the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) with binding rules and independent enforcement, and expand disclosure obligations to reveal tax and financial conflicts [1] [7]. The Brennan Center frames this as three priorities—close the loophole, boost disclosure, and strengthen enforcement—because federal law currently lacks the clear civil-enforcement tools that apply to other officials [1].
2. Codify and expand statutory checks that enable oversight
Comprehensive bills—like prior versions of the Protecting Our Democracy Act and other congressional proposals—seek to give Congress stronger subpoena enforcement, GAO review powers, and purse controls to curb executive overreach, plus whistleblower protections and Hatch Act enforcement for senior appointees [2] [5] [6]. Advocates argue these statutory layers create practical consequences that operate even when criminal prosecution is legally constrained [5] [4].
3. Reverse or limit presidential immunity through amendment or statute
Several House Democrats have reintroduced a “Presidential Accountability Amendment” aimed at ensuring no president enjoys criminal immunity—more than 60% of House Democrats cosponsored such proposals in recent iterations—while other Members of Congress and advocacy groups explicitly call for constitutional fixes following Supreme Court decisions that curtail accountability [8] [3]. Legislative amendments to the Constitution are difficult but would directly target judicially created immunity doctrines [8] [3].
4. Strengthen informational accountability: subpoenas, transparency, and records
Legal scholars and policy groups emphasize that access to documents and clear rules for executive branch information are foundational. Proposals include strengthening enforcement of congressional subpoenas, expanding reporting duties for executive agreements, and making decisions—like special counsel transparency—more public so external institutions can police misconduct [7] [2]. Protect Democracy’s package calls for codifying Take Care obligations and improving transparency where separation-of-powers tensions are acute [4].
5. Build non‑criminal enforcement mechanisms that work in practice
When criminal prosecution is uncertain, civil remedies, administrative sanctions, and removal powers matter. Past bills and proposals envision GAO audits, expanded whistleblower channels for contractors and staff, civil enforcement for ethics violations, and clearer administrative penalties for misuse of authority; House oversight markups have pursued measures such as broader whistleblower protections for contractors [6] [5]. These tools shift accountability from theoretical to enforceable actions [6] [5].
6. Beware of competing agendas: centralization vs. checks
Some executive actions in 2025 have sought to centralize presidential control over agencies—reclaiming oversight of “independent” regulators and asserting presidential “authoritative interpretations”—a structural move that proponents call greater accountability but critics say weakens independent checks and could shield misconduct by concentrating power [9] [10]. Analysts warn reforms must not hand the presidency new tools that can be misused to avoid accountability [9] [10] [11].
7. Courts still matter but have limits after recent rulings
Courts can enjoin unlawful executive conduct and review agency actions, but recent jurisprudence has complicated prospects for criminal accountability for official acts; that has driven the push for legislative or constitutional remedies and for strengthening non‑criminal oversight [12] [13]. Legal commentary underscores that judicial relief is essential but often slow and incomplete without complementary congressional enforcement [12] [13].
8. Practical politics: reform is possible but hard
Many proposals already exist—statutory packages, ethics law reform, and constitutional amendment drafts—but each faces political hurdles: passage in divided Congresses, the difficulty of a constitutional amendment, and the risk that presidentially driven administrative changes could blunt oversight [2] [1] [9]. Reform advocates stress incremental statutory steps (OGE authority, disclosures, subpoena enforcement, whistleblower protections) as the fastest, most achievable path [1] [5].
Limitations: available sources focus on U.S. statutory, administrative, and constitutional options and discuss political and judicial contexts; they do not provide a single definitive blueprint and differ on the balance between strengthening presidential control of agencies versus insulating oversight mechanisms [9] [10] [1].