Fact check: Which US presidents have been accused of abusing executive power?

1. Why Donald Trump dominates recent abuse-of-power allegations

A series of reporting and advocacy pieces catalog a wide array of actions by Donald Trump described as abuses of executive power, from efforts to overturn the 2020 election to alleged politicization of the Justice Department and use of pardons and executive actions to protect allies. These accounts point to court setbacks and criminal investigations as concrete legal markers: many contested orders were enjoined by courts, and multiple investigations have been opened into his conduct ^{[2] [5] [6]}. Sources vary in tone and evidentiary weight: investigative outlets cite specific actions and outcomes, advocacy groups highlight systemic threats, and legal analysts focus on judicial remedies already applied ^{[2] [6] [5]}.

2. The Biden autopen inquiry: procedural question or abuse claim?

House Republican investigators raised concerns in late October 2025 about President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen to sign documents and whether staff misused that authority, framing it as a potential procedural abuse of delegated signature power. The allegation centers on administrative delegation and record-keeping, not on obvious criminal conduct, and its significance depends on investigatory findings about intent, frequency, and statutory limits on signatures ^[3]. This matter illustrates how accusations can straddle administrative impropriety versus constitutional overreach, and how partisan investigation can elevate procedural irregularities into broader claims of abuse without judicial resolution ^[3].

3. Supreme Court docket reshaping the boundaries of presidential power

Several 2025 Supreme Court cases—on tariffs, firing of independent agency officials, and campaign fundraising—threaten to redefine presidential authority. Legal scholars warn the Court could expand or contract executive reach, with outcomes that will decisively influence what future conduct counts as “abuse.” The reporting highlights cases tied to Trump-era actions and statutory interpretation disputes, notably whether statutes like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act permit broad unilateral presidential tariff authority ^{[7] [4] [8]}. The Court’s rulings will convert contested political maneuvers into settled legal precedent, changing how abuse claims are evaluated going forward ^[4].

4. Divergent framings: civil liberties advocates vs. originalist scholars

Civil liberties organizations emphasize threats to democratic norms and concrete harms—paramilitary policing plans, targeting of critics, and erosion of independent law enforcement—as indicators of abuse, seeking political and legal resistance ^{[6] [5]}. By contrast, some originalist scholars argue the Constitution and statutes give Congress substantial authority to shape and limit executive functions, reframing “abuse” as often resolvable by legislation and structural design rather than solely by courts or politics ^[8]. These competing framings reflect alternative remedies: litigation and criminal probes versus statutory reforms to constrain or clarify executive power.

5. What counts as proof: courts, investigations, or partisan reports?

The sources reveal three evidentiary tiers: legal findings (court rulings, indictments, pardons), formal investigations/reports (congressional reports, inspector general findings), and advocacy or journalistic catalogs of problematic acts. Trump-related claims include items from all three tiers—court blocks, criminal probes, and lists of alleged abuses—whereas Biden-related claims in these materials mainly sit at the investigatory/report stage ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Evaluations of abuse should prioritize legally adjudicated outcomes while treating partisan reports as context that requires corroboration and independent review.

6. Possible agendas and how they shape coverage

Coverage and claims reflect clear agendas: advocacy groups and some news outlets frame executive actions as systemic threats to rights and institutions, pushing for accountability ^{[6] [5]}. Congressional actors advancing probes often pursue partisan oversight goals that can amplify procedural issues into political narratives ^[3]. Conversely, originalist and legal-centrist voices emphasize statutory interpretation and institutional remedies, sometimes minimizing rhetorical depictions of “abuse” in favor of structural fixes ^[8]. Recognizing these agendas clarifies why identical facts can produce dramatically different conclusions about whether a president “abused” power.

7. Bottom line: abuse allegations are mixed; future rulings will matter most

The materials show widespread allegations against presidents, particularly Donald Trump, backed by court actions and investigations; narrower procedural claims target Joe Biden. But many claims remain contested, and the ultimate boundary between lawful executive action and abuse will be heavily shaped by forthcoming Supreme Court decisions and congressional legislation that interpret or limit presidential authority. For now, the strongest factual anchors are court rulings and formal legal actions, while partisan and advocacy claims provide important but less definitive context ^{[2] [4] [3]}.