Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the DOJ policy on arresting or indicting a former president in 2023-2025?
Executive summary
The Justice Department in 2023–2025 operated under a long-standing DOJ/OLC posture that the Office of Legal Counsel concluded a sitting president is not amenable to indictment, which shaped charging decisions while Trump was in office and prompted pauses or dismissals in at least one federal prosecution when he remained president [1] [2]. Reporting from 2024–2025 shows that after the 2024 election and into 2025 the DOJ’s practice and internal actions — including appointments, suspensions, and rapid high-profile prosecutions — produced disputes over whether DOJ policy was being followed or politicized [3] [4] [5].
1. What the formal DOJ policy was: the OLC opinion and its effect
The Department of Justice’s influential legal guide is a 2018 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion concluding that indicting a sitting president would unconstitutionally undermine the executive branch and therefore the DOJ should not criminally prosecute a president while in office; that opinion has been relied on by DOJ leaders to decline or delay charging decisions against sitting presidents [1]. Public reporting and court filings reference that institutional policy when prosecutors declined to proceed or when special counsel motions cited the policy as a reason to pause or dismiss cases while a defendant remained president [2].
2. How that policy played out in practice, 2023–2025
In practice, the OLC view limited DOJ charging while a president was in office but did not prevent investigations; prosecutors continued investigations and produced reports assessing evidence, sometimes accelerating activity as political pressures rose. After the 2024 election result and shifts in administration or political power, DOJ actions changed: some litigated prosecutions resumed or were re-evaluated, and courts and prosecutors referenced the prior “no prosecution of a sitting president” posture when deciding next steps [2] [6].
3. Political pressures, appointments, and claims of politicization
Reporting in 2025 documents allegations that high-level personnel moves and handpicked interim prosecutors produced cases that critics call “highly unusual” or politically driven — for example, prosecutors selected by the White House who pursued indictments of political opponents — with judges questioning an “indict first, investigate later” approach [3] [7]. The New York Times and other outlets documented internal concerns from former DOJ officials who said some actions violated DOJ policy and norms [4].
4. Judicial pushback and grand-jury outcomes
Federal judges and grand juries provided checks on those prosecutorial moves: judges have ordered disclosures or criticized prosecutorial speed and method, and several grand juries reportedly declined to indict in multiple 2025 cases presented by that DOJ, suggesting courtroom and jury skepticism about certain prosecutions [8] [9]. Legal reporting highlights a tension: prosecutors pushed high-profile charges while some courts and juries resisted or demanded more rigorous proof [7] [9].
5. Limits of the sources and what they do not say
Available sources do not contain a single, updated DOJ manual text that replaces the 2018 OLC opinion; they instead show how that opinion and institutional norms were applied, contested, or cited in filings and press accounts [1] [2]. The materials provided do not include internal DOJ memos rescinding the OLC stance or a comprehensive, contemporaneous DOJ policy statement dated 2023–2025 explicitly changing the sitting-president prosecution rule — reporting instead documents actions, court filings, and commentary tied to that standing guidance [1] [2].
6. Competing viewpoints: law, norms, and politics
One view (legal-institutional) emphasizes restraint: the OLC opinion and many career prosecutors historically urged avoiding indictment of a sitting president to protect government functioning [1]. Another (political-actor) viewpoint, reflected in critics and some appointed officials, argues that political actors within DOJ used prosecutorial power to pursue retribution against opponents and that this broke DOJ norms — a critique voiced in reporting quoting former officials and journalists [4] [10]. Courts and grand juries, according to reporting, functioned as downstream arbiters, sometimes rebuking prosecutors [7] [9].
7. Bottom line for readers seeking clarity
The operative legal principle through 2025 was the OLC conclusion barring indictment of a sitting president, and that principle materially influenced DOJ practice in 2023–2025 [1] [2]. However, news coverage in 2025 documents contested applications of DOJ authority: politically sensitive appointments, rapid indictments of high‑profile figures, judicial criticism, and grand‑jury refusals all indicate the policy was enforced within a highly politicized and legally contested environment rather than as an uncontested administrative fact [3] [7] [9].