Fact check: How does the US Department of Justice handle investigations into former presidents?

1. Summary of the results

The US Department of Justice's handling of investigations into former presidents operates within a complex framework of legal precedents, institutional policies, and constitutional constraints. The DOJ maintains a long-standing policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, which directly impacts how cases against former presidents are managed when they return to office ^[1].

The Supreme Court has established significant immunity protections for former presidents, ruling that they can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, with at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts ^[2]. This creates substantial limitations on the DOJ's ability to pursue criminal cases against former presidents, as the Court has effectively granted presidents immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office ^[3].

The DOJ has demonstrated the ability to conduct investigations into former presidents, as evidenced by the federal criminal cases against Donald Trump that were being wound down due to his return to office ^[1]. However, the department's approach is heavily influenced by constitutional interpretations and institutional policies that prioritize the functioning of the presidency.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several critical contextual elements that significantly impact how DOJ investigations into former presidents actually function:

• The politicization of the Justice Department itself - The Trump administration dismantled the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department, which was responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption cases, potentially making it easier to prosecute opponents while sparing allies ^[4].
• Executive influence over prosecutorial decisions - The president can influence DOJ decisions through the Justice Department, with few constitutional limits on a president's power to open criminal investigations into perceived adversaries or critics ^[5].
• Surveillance and investigative overreach - The DOJ has secretly obtained records of members of Congress, staffers, and journalists during leak investigations, including records of Trump's FBI pick Kash Patel, raising concerns about inappropriate interference by the executive branch ^[6].
• The broader implications for democratic accountability - Those who benefit from expanded presidential immunity include current and future presidents who may wish to avoid accountability for potentially criminal acts committed in office, while civil liberties organizations like the ACLU argue this creates a dangerous precedent that undermines the rule of law ^[3].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual in its framing, asking for information about DOJ procedures rather than making claims. However, the question's simplicity obscures the highly politicized and constitutionally complex nature of this issue.

The question implies that there are standard, established procedures when in reality the handling of investigations into former presidents is heavily dependent on:

• Supreme Court rulings that have fundamentally altered the legal landscape ^{[3] [2]}
• Political considerations and institutional changes within the DOJ itself ^[4]
• The unprecedented nature of prosecuting former presidents, which creates novel legal and constitutional questions

The framing suggests procedural neutrality when the evidence shows that DOJ investigations into former presidents are subject to significant political influence, institutional manipulation, and constitutional constraints that may effectively shield former presidents from accountability ^{[5] [4] [3]}.