The doctrine has six major flaws:
It was an open door to the abuse of authority; it required that the parties in question could be said to have acted independently, which in the end was tantamount to giving them license to act independently.[15]
It rarely worked when invoked; the denials made were rarely plausible and were generally seen through by both the media and the populace.[16] One aspect of the Watergate crisis is the repeated failure of the doctrine of plausible deniability, which the administration repeatedly attempted to use to stop the scandal affecting President Richard Nixon and his aides.
"Plausible denial" only increases the risk of misunderstanding between senior officials and their employees.[17]
It only shifts blame, and generally, constructs rather little.
If the claim fails, it seriously discredits the political figure invoking it as a defense.
If it succeeds, it creates the impression that the government is not in control of the state.