In 2019, a significant political event took place in the United States involving the then-president, Donald Trump, and his alleged actions in connection with Ukraine. At the center of the controversy was a Latin phrase that most Americans were not familiar with: “quid pro quo.” This term, meaning “something for something” or “a favor for a favor,” became widely used to describe the situation. However, many believed it was not the best term to help the public understand the seriousness of the accusations against Trump.
The issue arose when Trump had a phone call with the new president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, on July 25, 2019. During that call, it was claimed that Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in exchange for releasing military aid that had been approved by Congress for Ukraine. This aid was intended to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression. Trump denied that he had done anything wrong and claimed no “quid pro quo” was involved.
The term gained attention when the American ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, texted Bill Taylor, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, saying, “There were no quid pro quos,” in response to Taylor’s concerns that withholding military aid in exchange for a political favor was “crazy.” This exchange sparked a heated debate in the media and political circles about whether Trump’s actions were an abuse of power.
Many Democrats believed that Trump had committed an impeachable offense by using his position to gain personal political advantage. They argued that by withholding military aid, Trump was effectively blackmailing Ukraine to get information that could harm Joe Biden, who at the time was considered a strong contender for the presidency in the upcoming 2020 election. However, the use of the term “quid pro quo” in describing Trump’s actions presented a communication problem for Democrats.
The phrase “quid pro quo” is not a term that most Americans use in their everyday language. It is a Latin term, and many people either did not understand its full meaning or were unfamiliar with it. The fact that the media and political analysts used it so frequently did not help Democrats in making their case to the American public. For many, the term sounded technical, abstract, and removed from the reality of what was being alleged.
Political commentator Arick Wierson noted that using “quid pro quo” was not going to resonate with most Americans. He argued that if Democrats wanted to make a stronger case against Trump, they needed to use simpler, more direct language. Instead of focusing on the Latin term, Wierson suggested that Democrats should describe Trump’s actions as “bribery” or “extortion,” terms that average Americans would understand immediately. After all, the U.S. Constitution specifically mentions bribery as an impeachable offense.
In fact, Wierson believed that the accusation should have been framed as an attempt by Trump to exact a “bribery payment” from Ukraine. In this scenario, Trump was seen as holding taxpayer-funded military aid hostage until Ukraine’s president publicly announced an investigation into Joe Biden. Using the term “bribery” would help voters connect the alleged misconduct to something clearly improper and unethical. Unlike “quid pro quo,” which is a neutral term that can apply in both legal and non-legal contexts, “bribery” carries with it a clear connotation of corruption.
This framing also had the advantage of aligning with the Founding Fathers’ original intentions. In the Constitution, the framers made it clear that a president could be impeached for acts of bribery. They saw bribery as a direct threat to the integrity of public office and believed that any president who engaged in such behavior was unfit for the office.
The media, however, continued to use “quid pro quo” as shorthand for Trump’s alleged misconduct. Pundits debated endlessly whether there was an actual “quid pro quo” or not. Republicans defending Trump argued that even if there was a quid pro quo, such exchanges happen regularly in foreign policy and are not illegal unless they are done for personal gain. Trump himself, along with some of his allies, admitted that there may have been a quid but insisted there was no corrupt motive behind it.
To further complicate the matter, Mick Mulvaney, who was the acting White House Chief of Staff at the time, seemed to admit during a press conference that there was a quid pro quo, but he claimed it was related to concerns about Ukrainian corruption, not to investigating the Bidens. Mulvaney later tried to walk back his statement, but the damage had already been done. His remarks fueled the debate and provided more material for Democrats arguing that Trump had indeed misused his power.
The term “quid pro quo” became a distraction as the debate continued. Rather than focusing on the substance of Trump’s actions, the conversation shifted to semantics and technicalities. Was there a quid pro quo? Was it illegal? Did Trump act with corrupt intent? These were the questions that dominated the public discourse rather than the core issue of whether the president had tried to leverage U.S. foreign aid for personal political gain.
Many commentators, including Wierson, believed this confusion worked to Trump’s advantage. By muddying the waters and making the issue seem complicated and abstract, Trump and his defenders were able to make it harder for the public to grasp the seriousness of the allegations fully. For many voters, the constant back-and-forth about “quid pro quo” became tiresome, and they tuned out the details of the impeachment inquiry.
Ultimately, the use of the term “quid pro quo” did not help Democrats in their efforts to sway public opinion. If they had instead used simpler, more forceful language—like “bribery” or “extortion”—the case against Trump might have been clearer to the average voter. Describing Trump’s actions as an attempt to force Ukraine into paying a bribe would have resonated more with people’s sense of right and wrong.
In conclusion, the impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s actions in connection with Ukraine was clouded by the use of complex legal terms like “quid pro quo.” While this phrase accurately described the exchange Trump allegedly sought, it did not carry the emotional weight needed to convey the gravity of the accusations to the American public. Terms like “bribery” or “extortion” might have been more effective in making the case that Trump had crossed a line. By relying on a foreign term unfamiliar to most Americans, Democrats missed an opportunity to communicate more clearly and directly about the alleged abuses of power at the heart of the inquiry.
