Americans today are once again debating the limits of presidential power, the meaning of accountability and whether political leaders are ever truly held responsible for their actions. These questions were first tested on a national scale during Watergate, a scandal that exposed corruption at the highest level of government.
Anointed with the fierce name of “Liz the Lion Killer” after a shock defeat of powerful incumbent Congressman Emanuel Celler in 1972, Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman quickly became a symbol of courage and fearlessness in Washington, making history in more ways than one. With this momentous win, Holtzman became the youngest-ever serving congresswoman at just 31 years old. Her nickname not only applied to her decisive district win, but also foreshadowed a career marked by many battles against the “lions” of Washington as she challenged established figures for the sake of her constituents and for the sake of her country.
Entering Congress as a freshman representative from Brooklyn in 1973, Holtzman faced the obstacles of being at the bottom of the congressional hierarchy. After she joined the House Judiciary Committee, the committee was assigned a career-defining case: Watergate. Though new to Congress, Holtzman approached this challenge with extreme thoroughness and strategy, examining every inch of the Constitution. Her preparation demonstrated that credibility came not from tenure, but from seriousness of purpose.
During the investigation, in September 1974, President Gerald Ford issued a full pardon to former President Richard Nixon, sparking widespread criticism and skepticism. After receiving letters describing public outrage, Holtzman knew she needed to voice those concerns during Ford’s testimony — a risky move for a young congresswoman. Anticipating that another person would ask the questions she had prepared, it came as a shock when Holtzman saw how indifferent her colleagues were, as they praised Ford rather than questioned him. Yet, when it was Holtzman’s turn to go up to the stand, she conducted the interrogation of Ford. Listing out the many concerns her constituents had in just her opening speech, Holtzman did the exact opposite of her fellow members. She then proceeded to ask what was perhaps the most vital, yet dangerous, question of them all: Did Ford and Nixon make a deal that led to his pardon?
Her direct approach to questioning Ford was immediately met with backlash as Rep. Lawrence Hogan rebuked her, stating that he was “frankly amazed” by her “accusatory” opening statement, highlighting the institutional pressures she faced. Holtzman later recalled the pressure she felt in that moment, saying “I said, you know, maybe I’m risking everything here, but I just had to do it. That was it.” Holtzman understood the weight of her decision as it could have cost her a seat in Congress, yet she knew that silence would have been complicity.
Holtzman’s courage was not defined by electoral sacrifice. Although she encountered criticisms from other lawmakers and media outlets, with one even calling her disrespectful for acknowledging the president as “Mr. Ford,” there was still a wide positive consensus from the public. Many appreciated her candor and commitment to voicing the public’s opinion. Her questions had lasting institutional impact. The impact of Watergate cannot be understated, as it was the first modern test of how Congress should confront the abuse of presidential power. The way the case was handled would set the precedent for all future impeachment trials, underscoring the importance of Holtzman’s questioning. By pressing Ford on whether or not Nixon’s pardon was an agreement made between the two, Holtzman established the standard that would guide future impeachment proceedings. Her actions affirmed that no president is above scrutiny simply because of political convenience. Holtzman’s role in the Watergate scandal set the standard for how presidential impeachments should proceed and emphasized the importance of the principle we all follow as Americans: No one is higher than the rule of law, not even the “lions” of Washington.
In today’s world, Holtzman’s example feels especially relevant. As debates over executive authority continue, Holtzman’s actions demonstrate that accountability is not automatic; it must be demanded. Her legacy serves as a reminder that the strength of our democracy depends on those willing to defend its principles. The rule of law has withstood the test of time because individuals choose to uphold it, a reality exemplified by Holtzman.
Etsy Michael is a student at the Bryn Mawr School who serves on the Howard County Teen Court Jury.
