Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have other US presidents faced criminal charges or convictions and when?
Executive Summary
Several past U.S. presidents and high-level officials have faced serious legal exposures—including impeachment, criminal investigations, pleas, and convictions of associates—but no prior president had been criminally convicted and sentenced in the way described for Donald Trump until 2024–2025, making his conviction historically unprecedented in modern practice. Historical episodes that are often cited—Richard Nixon’s Watergate resignation and naming as an unindicted co‑conspirator, Spiro Agnew’s guilty plea to tax evasion (while serving as vice president), Aaron Burr’s treason trial and acquittal, and Bill Clinton’s impeachment—illustrate the variety of legal, constitutional, and political remedies other presidents encountered; each episode differs materially from a criminal conviction of a former president [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What people claim and what that really means: pulling the threads apart
Analysts and public statements often collapse several distinct categories—criminal indictment, criminal conviction, impeachment by the House, Senate conviction, pardons, and administrative or professional discipline—into a single claim that “other presidents faced criminal charges.” The historical record shows impeachment by Congress occurred for Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump (twice), but impeachment is a political, constitutional process distinct from criminal prosecution; none of those impeachments resulted in a criminal conviction by a court [2]. Separate episodes, like Spiro Agnew’s guilty plea to tax evasion and Aaron Burr’s treason trial, involve close presidential associates or nonconvictions, demonstrating that legal troubles have touched presidents and their circles without producing prior criminal convictions of a former president in the ordinary criminal justice system [3] [4].
2. Key historical episodes people point to—and what actually happened
Richard Nixon’s involvement in Watergate led to resigning the presidency and numerous indictments of aides; Nixon was named an unindicted co‑conspirator and never criminally prosecuted after President Gerald Ford issued a blanket pardon, which ended the prospect of criminal trial [2]. Vice President Spiro Agnew pleaded guilty to tax evasion and resigned in 1973, a rare instance of a sitting vice president entering a criminal plea [3]. Aaron Burr was tried for treason in 1807 and acquitted; Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 by the House for perjury and obstruction of justice and was acquitted by the Senate, though he later faced professional discipline, not criminal conviction [3] [2]. These episodes underscore varied outcomes—resignation, pardon, acquittal, impeachment without criminal verdict—not prior convictions of a former president [4].
3. Why the Trump conviction is described as historically novel
Donald Trump’s 2024–2025 criminal conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York—followed by reporting that he is the first former U.S. president to be tried and convicted in a criminal court—differs from earlier episodes because it is a court conviction resulting in criminal penalties, not merely impeachment or political sanction [1] [5]. Trump also faced multiple separate criminal indictments across jurisdictions—state charges in New York, federal classified‑documents charges, and Georgia election‑related prosecutions—creating an unprecedented concentration of active criminal cases involving a former and then‑reëlected president. Legal scholars emphasize that the constitutional eligibility to hold office is separate from criminal status, so a conviction does not automatically disqualify a candidate under the Constitution’s express qualifications [3].
4. Important legal distinctions that frequently get overlooked in public debate
Public discussion often conflates impeachment with criminal prosecution; the two processes have different standards, actors, and consequences. Impeachment is a congressional remedy that can remove a sitting official and disqualify from future office; criminal prosecution is handled by prosecutors and courts and can result in fines or imprisonment. Pardons can foreclose prosecution post‑resignation in certain contexts, as with Nixon, and prosecutorial policies—such as the Department of Justice guideline against indicting a sitting president—have shaped timing and venue for cases [2] [3]. Historical lists of convicted federal officials are extensive, but they mostly involve members of Congress, governors, and appointees rather than presidents, underlining the exceptional nature of a former president’s criminal conviction [4].
5. What sources agree on, where they differ, and why it matters now
Contemporary reporting and legal commentary converge on the factual matrix: Donald Trump was the first former U.S. president to be criminally convicted in modern history, while earlier presidents faced investigations, impeachment, pardons, or acquittals but not a standard criminal court conviction [1] [5] [3]. Differences among analysts center on emphasis—some stress institutional risks and norms undermined by prosecutions of a former president; others emphasize rule‑of‑law considerations and equal application of criminal statutes. These competing framings often reflect political or institutional agendas: defenders argue prosecutorial overreach, critics highlight accountability for alleged wrongdoing. Understanding these distinctions is essential for assessing precedent, potential reforms, and the political consequences of applying ordinary criminal law to top political figures [3] [5].