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

1. Summary of the results

The question of whether a former US president can be arrested for crimes committed in office has a complex answer that depends on the nature of the alleged crimes. Yes, a former president can face criminal charges, as demonstrated by Donald Trump becoming the first former US president to face criminal charges and be convicted of felony crimes ^{[1] [2]}.

However, the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States significantly complicated this issue by establishing different levels of immunity for presidential actions ^[3]:

• Absolute immunity for actions within the president's exclusive constitutional authority
• Presumptive immunity for other official acts
• No immunity for unofficial/private conduct

The Court's decision grants former President Trump absolute immunity for his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct election results and presumptive immunity for alleged efforts to pressure former Vice President Pence, while leaving open the possibility that charges based on private conduct can still proceed ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the Supreme Court's recent immunity ruling, which fundamentally changed the legal landscape for presidential accountability. The analyses reveal that this decision creates substantial immunity for presidents' official actions, even when undertaken for personal ends and criminal purposes ^[5].

Historical precedent is also missing from the question. Past presidents including Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, and Bill Clinton faced scandals and potential criminal charges, though none were actually indicted before Trump ^[6]. This historical context shows that presidential legal troubles are not unprecedented, but actual prosecution is.

The difficulty in determining the line between official and unofficial conduct represents a significant challenge that the original question doesn't address ^[5]. This distinction is now crucial for determining whether a former president can be prosecuted.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while straightforward, could be misleading because it implies a simple yes/no answer when the reality is much more nuanced. The question doesn't acknowledge that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling has created different standards for different types of presidential conduct.

Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU argue that the Supreme Court's decision effectively places presidents above the law for crimes committed in office, setting a dangerous precedent ^[7]. This perspective suggests that the immunity ruling may have made it practically very difficult to arrest former presidents for many crimes committed while in office, despite the theoretical possibility remaining for unofficial acts.

The framing of the question as "crimes committed in office" is potentially problematic because it doesn't distinguish between official acts (which now have immunity protection) and private conduct (which remains prosecutable), a distinction that is now legally crucial but practically difficult to determine.