Fact check: Have any US Presidents been convicted of a felony before or after taking office?

1. A historic conviction and an unusual sentence — what the records say

The assembled accounts report that a jury found Donald Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, with news reports calling this the first time a sitting or former U.S. president has been convicted of felony crimes. One report dates the guilty verdict to May 2024, framing the conviction as a legal precedent marking a president’s criminal conviction ^[2]. Subsequent reporting in January 2025 documents that Judge Juan Merchan imposed an “unconditional discharge” as the sentence, leaving Trump formally convicted but without fines, jail time, or other penalties ^{[1] [3]}. These pieces together establish both the conviction and the atypical disposition.

2. How an “unconditional discharge” changes the consequences

An unconditional discharge, as described in the sources, results in a person retaining the status of a convicted felon while effectively avoiding traditional penal consequences; reporting notes that Judge Merchan’s decision meant no further punishment was imposed despite the guilty verdict. One source explicitly connects the judge’s sentencing decision to considerations about an imminent presidential term and the legal protections a presidency might afford, indicating the sentence reduced collateral consequences but did not erase the conviction itself ^{[1] [3]}. The reporting underscores a separation between criminal liability (guilt established) and punishment administered (none applied).

3. Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity — sweeping or partial?

The materials include reporting and commentary on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, which various outlets framed as granting presidents absolute immunity for certain official acts and presumptive or partial immunity for other conduct. One analysis portrays the ruling as granting broad immunity and warns that it may undermine accountability, while others describe a split approach: immunity for official acts, no immunity for unofficial acts, leaving major questions unresolved about the reach of criminal prosecution for conduct linked to official duties ^{[4] [5] [6]}. The articles date this jurisprudential shift to mid-2024 and to commentary in 2025.

4. How the immunity ruling interacts with the conviction and sentence

The sources present an apparent legal tension: even as a criminal jury convicted a former president of felonies, a separate Supreme Court trajectory narrowed the circumstances in which a president can be prosecuted for official conduct. One report suggests the immunities recognized by the high court have practical effects on whether and how presidential conduct can be charged and tried, and commentators from civil liberties organizations argued the decision could insulate future presidents from accountability ^{[4] [5] [6]}. The conviction-plus-discharge narrative and the immunity rulings together highlight a system where guilt, punishment, and immunity can diverge.

5. Differing framings and the potential agendas behind them

Reporting varies in emphasis: criminal-trial coverage stresses the historic nature of a presidential conviction and the jury’s role in finding guilt, while legal-analysis pieces focus on the Supreme Court reshaping prosecutorial reach and potential threats to the rule of law. Civil liberties groups framed the immunity decision as a dangerous precedent, whereas some legal reporting described it as a clarification of constitutional limits on prosecutorial power. Each source reveals an agenda—trial-focused outlets highlight precedent; advocacy groups warn about future impunity; legal analysts dissect doctrine—requiring readers to synthesize both factual and normative claims ^{[2] [5] [6]}.

6. What the sources do not resolve — open legal and practical questions

The provided materials leave key questions unanswered: how the unconditional discharge will affect civil consequences, voting eligibility, or political capital; whether the Supreme Court’s immunity framework will be interpreted more narrowly or broadly in subsequent cases; and how prosecutors will handle alleged presidential misconduct going forward. Coverage notes these uncertainties and highlights that the immunity decisions “do not explicitly address” international crimes or all categories of official conduct, signaling continued legal ambiguity and potential for future litigation ^{[4] [3]}.

7. The bottom line for the original question about presidents and felony convictions

Based solely on the supplied analyses, the factual record indicates that a U.S. president — Donald Trump — was convicted on felony counts and subsequently received an unconditional discharge, making him the first president in U.S. history with a felony conviction under these reports. Simultaneously, Supreme Court precedent and ongoing legal debate over immunity complicate the picture of accountability for presidential acts, producing a rare situation where conviction exists without conventional punishment and immunity doctrines constrain future prosecutions ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.