What are the potential consequences for a US president found guilty of treason?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the potential consequences for a US president found guilty of treason involve both constitutional penalties and practical legal complexities that have evolved significantly in recent years.

Constitutional and Legal Penalties: Multiple sources confirm that treason carries the death penalty under federal law ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The analyses indicate that treason has historically been "punishable by death" and remains a capital offense in the United States ^{[1] [2]}. One source specifically notes that "treason is already punishable by death" when discussing recent executive orders regarding federal executions ^[3].

Presidential Immunity Complications: However, the legal landscape has been dramatically altered by recent Supreme Court decisions. The analyses reveal that the Supreme Court has granted presumptive immunity for official acts, which could significantly impact how treason charges against a president would be prosecuted ^[4]. The Court's ruling establishes that presidents have "some immunity from prosecution" and are "largely shielded from criminal liability" for actions taken in their official capacity ^{[4] [5]}.

Prosecution Limitations: The Supreme Court opinion creates a complex framework where "prosecution for official conduct is limited" ^[5]. This means that even if a president committed acts that could constitute treason, the ability to prosecute would depend heavily on whether those acts were performed in an official or personal capacity ^{[6] [5]}. The analyses suggest that "the Court may limit prosecution based on immunity, affecting potential consequences" ^[6].

Executive Authority Over Executions: Recent developments show that presidential executive orders can influence the implementation of capital punishment, including "resuming executions" for capital crimes ^[3]. This creates an additional layer of complexity, as a sitting president would have authority over the very system that could potentially execute them if convicted.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several critical gaps in addressing the full scope of consequences for presidential treason:

Historical Precedent: None of the sources provide historical examples of presidents charged with or convicted of treason, leaving a significant void in understanding how such cases have been handled previously. The analyses focus on recent political accusations rather than actual legal proceedings ^[2].

Impeachment vs. Criminal Prosecution: The sources fail to address the relationship between impeachment proceedings and criminal prosecution for treason. There's no discussion of whether impeachment would need to precede criminal charges or how these parallel processes might interact.

Practical Implementation Challenges: The analyses don't explore the practical difficulties of prosecuting a sitting president for treason, including questions of who would have authority to bring charges and oversee such proceedings given the executive branch's role in federal prosecutions.

Alternative Penalties: While the death penalty is mentioned consistently, the sources don't discuss other potential consequences such as imprisonment, fines, or loss of civil rights that might apply in treason cases where capital punishment isn't pursued.

International Implications: Missing entirely is any discussion of how a presidential treason conviction might affect international relations, treaty obligations, or national security considerations.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual in its framing, asking about legal consequences rather than making claims. However, the analyses reveal some concerning patterns in the source material:

Political Weaponization: Several sources focus on political accusations of treason rather than legal analysis, particularly regarding claims that "President Trump accused former President Obama of treason" ^[2]. This suggests that treason allegations have become politicized tools rather than serious legal considerations.

Selective Legal Focus: The analyses show a bias toward discussing recent political controversies rather than providing comprehensive legal analysis. Sources emphasize political disputes over substantive legal precedent ^{[1] [2]}.

Incomplete Legal Framework: The sources present an incomplete picture by focusing heavily on penalties while inadequately addressing the immunity protections that would likely prevent such prosecutions. This creates a misleading impression that presidential treason cases would proceed like ordinary criminal matters ^{[6] [4] [5]}.

The question itself doesn't contain misinformation, but the available analyses suggest that complete and unbiased information about this topic is difficult to obtain due to the highly politicized nature of treason discussions in contemporary American politics.