Fact check: What is the process for a former president to be stripped of their pension and benefits?

1. What advocates and reports repeatedly claim about presidential perks — a clear outline of the FPA’s benefits

The FPA provides a package of continuing benefits to former presidents, including a pension, staffing and office expense allowances, medical and health insurance access, and some security-related services; these are the core entitlements cited across analyses ^{[1] [3]}. The stated pension is tied to executive-department head pay and the Act contemplates clerical support and office allowances as statutory benefits available to former presidents. The referenced summaries emphasize that the benefits are statutory, not discretionary rewards, and thus are generally automatic absent statutory disqualifiers described elsewhere in the law ^{[1] [5]}. This basic catalogue frames later debate about removal and disqualification.

2. How impeachment and removal are described as the primary statutory disqualifier — agreement and limits

All sources identify impeachment and conviction resulting in removal from office as the principal statutory trigger that disqualifies a president from receiving the benefits enumerated in the FPA ^{[4] [5]}. Several analyses state bluntly that a president removed via impeachment is ineligible for the pension and many perquisites; those conclusions appear as a common interpretation across the dataset. However, the analyses also record limits to that clarity: some indicate the FPA’s disqualifying language applies when conviction and removal occur while the individual is still in office, leaving open whether a later conviction after the president has left office creates the same statutory bar ^[2]. This interpretive gap is central to the dispute about stripping benefits post-facto.

3. The legal ambiguity when conviction comes after term expiration — competing readings

One analysis highlights a consequential ambiguity: the FPA forbids entitlement to benefits for anyone convicted in an impeachment trial or removed from office, but it is unclear whether the disqualification operates if the impeachment conviction happens after the individual has already left office ^[2]. That analysis, dated January 18, 2021, underscores the procedural question lawmakers and courts might face if an ex-president is later convicted by the Senate. Other reports treat removal-by-impeachment as a straightforward bar to benefits without parsing the temporal sequencing, effectively assuming that conviction while in office is the disqualifying scenario ^{[4] [6]}. The divergence points to potential litigation or legislative clarification if the scenario arises.

4. Secret Service protection as the notable exception — distinct statutory treatment

Multiple analyses identify Secret Service protection as governed separately and often preserved even when other FPA benefits are lost by virtue of impeachment or removal ^{[4] [3]}. These sources stress that security authorizations and statutory protections do not perfectly map onto the FPA’s pension-and-office framework. The distinction matters practically: removal from FPA benefits could strip income, staffing, and office allowances, while eligibility for federal protective details may persist under separate statutes or agency discretion. This difference means loss of the pension can coexist with retained personal security, complicating public perceptions of what “stripped of benefits” would look like in practice.

5. Who actually acts to strip benefits — Congress, the Senate, or the courts — and the procedural pathways

The analyses suggest two principal institutional levers: the Senate via impeachment trials that remove a president while in office, and Congress through statute or appropriations language if a post-term disqualification is sought ^{[2] [6]}. One analysis explicitly notes that the Senate would need to vote to strip specific benefits and that Congress retains authority to modify statutory benefits; another points to potential legal challenges if Congress attempted retroactive disqualification. This combination of impeachment mechanics plus possible subsequent legislative action frames a multi-actor process: Senate conviction removes eligibility when completed in office, while post-term removal of benefits would likely require either new legislation or judicial resolution of statutory text.

6. Practical outcomes, precedents, and unresolved policy choices that matter next

The available analyses converge on practical realities and unresolved choices: the FPA’s language and historical practice offer no settled precedent for stripping pension and benefits from an already-former president via post-term conviction, and congressional or judicial clarification would be required to resolve that gap ^{[2] [6]}. Some sources note resignation as a tactical move that preserves benefits by avoiding formal removal ^[6]. Taken together, the materials show that while the statute is clear about removal-in-office disqualifying entitlements, it leaves open the question of post-tenure convicting and disbarring, putting pressure on Congress or the courts to define the boundary if a case arises ^{[1] [5]}.