Why Trump is unlikely to face prosecution after leaving office

Why Trump is unlikely to face prosecution after leaving office

The sweeping immunity granted to presidents by the US Supreme Court last year has effectively placed Donald Trump beyond the reach of most criminal prosecutions once he leaves office in 2029. Despite allegations of impropriety in his second term — and renewed questions about his family’s lucrative cryptocurrency venture — specialists in constitutional and criminal law say the legal landscape has been altered so fundamentally that pursuing charges may be nearly impossible, the New York Times reported.

A presidency shielded by an expansive immunity doctrine

The Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States created the most protective framework ever afforded to a US president. It held that presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution for actions undertaken within their “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” and presumptively immune for all official acts. Only conduct clearly outside official duties can be prosecuted. That distinction, legal analysts argue, is murky in practice and now tilted heavily toward presidential protection.

The weight of past cases — and why they no longer apply

When Trump left office in 2021, he faced more than 80 criminal charges. Those cases, filed during the years he was out of power, relied on the idea that a president remained subject to ordinary legal scrutiny after leaving office. But the 2024 ruling overturned that basic assumption. Actions once treated as potential abuses of office — pressuring the Justice Department, directing investigations, or granting controversial pardons — now fall squarely within a sphere that the Court has defined as immune from criminal review.

The Justice Department under Trump’s second term

Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025 has been marked by intense pressure on federal prosecutors. He has repeatedly described oversight of his administration as illegitimate, recasting scrutiny as political persecution. That framing has justified retaliatory investigations into former officials, critics, and political opponents. Legal scholars warn that these tactics, although widely viewed as abuses of power, are insulated by the immunity standard. Prosecutors would now have to prove that such orders were rooted exclusively in personal motives — a threshold many believe is unattainable.

A rare exception: the family’s crypto empire

The only area where Trump could face exposure involves World Liberty Financial, the cryptocurrency venture in which his family holds a controlling stake. The company has attracted investments from pardoned associates, foreign corporations and firms facing regulatory scrutiny. Critics argue that these transactions merit investigation under bribery, money-laundering or securities-fraud statutes. Yet even here, the immunity ruling complicates matters. Any regulatory decisions made by Trump as president could fall under “official acts,” shielding him from prosecution. Only actions undertaken solely as a private citizen would remain vulnerable — and the overlap between his public role and private interests is likely to create enough ambiguity to stall any case.

A legal landscape rewritten by ambiguity

The ruling has produced what many constitutional scholars describe as an unprecedented tangle in the law of presidential accountability. Conduct that once seemed clearly outside the bounds of lawful governance — using the Justice Department to target adversaries, rewarding political allies through pardons, or benefiting indirectly from regulatory decisions — is now folded into the broad category of presidential discretion. Prosecutors would bear the burden of proving that an act was unquestionably private, an almost impossible standard when a president can invoke wide-ranging constitutional authority.

Concerns about conflict of interest and the erosion of restraint

Some analysts argue that Trump’s consistent blending of public power and private interest only strengthens his legal position. Actions previously viewed as conflicts of interest can now be reframed as intertwined with presidential responsibilities. The blurred boundary between the two works in his favour, placing nearly all decisions under the shield of official capacity. Critics warn that this structure could allow a president to wield authority without meaningful accountability, provided the conduct can be cast as part of executive action.

A presidency without precedent — and with few consequences

Many scholars note that Trump’s behaviour in his second term has followed the pattern he openly signalled for years: the pursuit of loyalty, the targeting of critics, and the readiness to use state power for political ends. With the immunity ruling in place, they say he is likely to leave office insulated from criminal consequences. That outcome, they argue, raises profound questions about the future of democratic checks and balances, the limits of executive authority and the country’s ability to deter similar conduct by future presidents.