Fact check: Can a former US President be arrested for crimes committed while in office?

1. Historic Firsts: What the Trump Conviction Shows About Accountability

The May 2024 New York conviction of Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records established a concrete precedent that a person who served as president can be criminally convicted after leaving office, demonstrating prosecutors can bring and juries can sustain felony verdicts against former presidents for non-immunity-covered conduct ^[1]. This case is notable because it produced the first felony conviction of a former or sitting U.S. president, illustrating that state-level criminal statutes can apply to actions taken before, during, or after tenure when those acts fall outside any claimed official immunity.

2. Indictments Beyond Presidents: A Broader Pattern of Prosecution

Indictments of other senior officials — such as the reported 2025 charges against former FBI Director James Comey for alleged false statements and obstruction related to 2020 testimony — reflect a Department of Justice and state prosecutors’ willingness to pursue high-profile public figures ^{[3] [4]}. These cases underscore that legal exposure is not unique to presidents and that actions taken in official contexts have repeatedly become subject to criminal investigation, reinforcing the principle that state and federal criminal law can reach senior government actors when prosecutors allege unlawful conduct.

3. The Immunity Question: Supreme Court Intervention Changes the Field

The legal debate centers on presidential immunity for “official acts,” a question the Supreme Court has been asked to resolve and, according to some sources, has ruled that former presidents enjoy immunity for certain official actions ^{[5] [2]}. That judicial intervention creates a critical legal filter: if an act is judicially characterized as official, it may be shielded from criminal prosecution, whereas unofficial acts remain prosecutable. The Court’s decisions—which include oral arguments and rulings reported in late 2025 and early 2026—directly affect the viability and timing of prosecutions against former presidents.

4. Conflicting Outcomes: Convictions and Possible Overturns in Play

While convictions like the New York case show prosecution success, analysis and reporting also highlight the risk of reversal or narrowing by higher courts, with commentators noting potential appellate or Supreme Court grounds to overturn convictions based on immunity or other legal doctrines ^{[6] [7]}. This tension creates a two-tier reality: prosecutors can secure convictions in trial courts, but the ultimate durability of those convictions depends on appellate interpretation of constitutional protections, evidentiary rules, and separation-of-powers concerns.

5. Comparative Perspective: Other Democracies Show Precedents and Differences

International examples, such as the sentencing of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy to prison in 2025 for illegal campaign financing, demonstrate that former heads of state can be criminally punished in other democracies ^[8]. Comparative cases highlight variations in legal frameworks: some systems have clearer statutory or constitutional provisions limiting immunity, while U.S. law relies on evolving doctrine and judicial interpretation, meaning outcomes depend heavily on domestic constitutional law and federal-state prosecutorial structures.

6. Expert Analysis: Prosecutors and Scholars Highlight Complexity

Legal scholars and former prosecutors, including David Alan Sklansky, emphasize the complexity of charging decisions against former presidents, noting overlapping federal/state jurisdictions, classification of acts as official versus private, and practical enforcement issues such as indictment timing and trial logistics ^[7]. Experts point out that charging decisions must account for precedential ripple effects, potential political backlash, and the need for clear factual records to persuade juries and appellate courts that alleged conduct falls outside legitimate official duties.

7. Practical Consequences: Arrests, Trials, and Enforcement Realities

Practical enforcement has already manifested: prosecutors have brought charges and courts have held trials, showing arrests and courtroom procedures occur even for former presidents and senior officials ^{[1] [3]}. Nevertheless, procedural stays, appeals, and higher-court rulings—including those concerning immunity—can delay or vacate outcomes, and state prosecutors may face different constraints than federal ones. Thus, while arrest and prosecution are possible, the process is often protracted and legally contested until final appellate resolution.

8. Bottom Line: Law, Politics, and Ongoing Uncertainty

The available record through late 2025 and early 2026 proves that former presidents can be arrested and convicted for certain crimes, but Supreme Court interventions and divergent legal doctrines generate significant uncertainty about which acts are prosecutable. The interplay of trial verdicts, high-court rulings on immunity, and comparative international examples shows accountability is feasible but not guaranteed, meaning each prosecution will turn on specific facts, legal characterization of acts, and evolving judicial interpretations ^{[1] [2] [8]}.