Fact check: What is the process for indicting a former US President?

1. How the indictment pipeline actually works — investigators, grand juries, and prosecutors want evidence that meets criminal standards

The basic criminal process applied to any citizen under U.S. law also governs a former president: investigations collect evidence, prosecutors decide whether probable cause exists, and either a grand jury or a prosecutor files charges leading to indictment. That sequence is visible across the recent matters described: state and federal investigations preceded filings in New York, Georgia, Florida, and the District of Columbia, illustrating that jurisdictional lines determine where different alleged conduct is charged ^[1]. The processes differ in practical mechanics—state grand juries often sit in secret; federal prosecutors may proceed by information or grand jury indictment—but the constitutional and statutory thresholds for criminal charge apply uniformly regardless of former officeholder status ^[1].

2. The Supreme Court’s 2025 cut — immunity for official acts reshaped prosecutorial reach

The Supreme Court decision reported in mid-September 2025 established that a president enjoys absolute immunity for acts within their “core constitutional authority” as president and presumptive protection for official acts, while criminal liability remains possible for unofficial acts, narrowing the universe of prosecutable conduct ^[2]. That ruling was published on or about September 14–15, 2025, and it has already become a central legal pivot: defense teams invoke it to dismiss or narrow counts tied to official decisionmaking, while prosecutors must now craft charging theories that distinguish unofficial conduct from protected official acts, increasing litigation over the factual classification of each charged act ^[2].

3. Real-world application: indictments, jurisdictions, and a conviction timeline that matters

Reporting and summaries compiled around the follow-on prosecutions show that Donald Trump faced multiple indictments in distinct jurisdictions—New York and Georgia at the state level and federal matters in Florida and D.C.—reflecting different alleged conduct and separate prosecutorial authorities ^[1]. Those filings led to litigation over immunity and other procedural defenses culminating, in one account, in a January 1, 2026 conviction in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to a 2016 hush-money scheme, marking the first felony conviction of a former president under those reports and underscoring how state prosecutions can proceed independently of federal immunities ^[3].

4. Legal friction points: what prosecutors and defense teams now litigate intensely

Post-2025 litigation centers on whether specific actions were official or unofficial, whether immunity applies, and how evidentiary records reflect intent and falsity, forcing judges to resolve fact-intensive questions at early stages. The immunity ruling did not eliminate prosecutions but shifted the battleground toward classification and scope, prompting motions to dismiss and extended pretrial discovery fights as prosecutors reframe charges to survive judicial scrutiny ^[2]. Scholars and commentators note that this reorientation creates longer, more complex pretrial procedures as courts weigh constitutional protections against criminal statutes ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Wider implications flagged by scholars: dangers and constraints beyond the courtroom

Academic and policy analyses published in December 2025 warn that the immunity framework could erode informal constraints and encourage executive overreach if official-act protections become a broad shield, while others argue the ruling preserves necessary separation of powers by keeping ordinary political decisions exempt from criminalization ^{[4] [5]}. These works frame the Supreme Court’s decision as consequential not only for individual prosecutions but for institutional norms—highlighting tensions between accountability and preserving a functional executive branch that cannot be chilled by criminal exposure for core official duties ^{[4] [5]}.

6. What to watch next — procedural signals and calendar markers that determine outcomes

The crucial next steps are procedural: appellate rulings that interpret and limit the immunity doctrine, pretrial rulings on charge sufficiency, and coordinate scheduling across jurisdictions. The timeline in these sources shows post‑ruling litigation accelerating in late 2025 and a notable state conviction reported in early 2026, signaling that outcomes will depend as much on prosecutorial charging choices and judicial gatekeeping as on factual proof ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Observers should track published court opinions and docket activity because those documents will concretely define how immunity is applied and which allegations remain prosecutable.

7. Bottom line — indicting a former president is legally possible but politically and procedurally complicated

The synthesis of reporting and scholarship indicates that a former president can be indicted and tried, but immunity limitations, jurisdictional fragmentation, and intense pretrial disputes make prosecutions unusually complex and drawn out. The September 2025 Supreme Court decision tightened legal contours by protecting core official acts while leaving room to prosecute unofficial conduct; subsequent indictments across multiple jurisdictions and a reported New York conviction in January 2026 illustrate both feasibility and the novel legal questions now being litigated ^{[2] [1] [3]}.