Trump's Orders: Did He Encourage Law-Breaking?

Former US President Donald Trump has been accused of encouraging his staff to break the law on several occasions. In August 2020, a former Department of Homeland Security official, Miles Taylor, claimed that Trump had promised pardons for any officials who broke the law while carrying out his hardline immigration policies. Taylor alleged that Trump had wanted to close the US-Mexico border and was willing to pardon anyone who made it happen, even if it was illegal. Additionally, in June 2018, Trump appeared to break a federal rule when he tweeted about the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics more than an hour before its official release. This violation of the Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Directive No. 3 raised concerns about the potential impact on domestic and global markets. Furthermore, the House Jan. 6 committee has referred Trump to the Justice Department for consideration of prosecution on four different crimes related to his efforts to undo the 2020 election results and his behavior during the Capitol insurrection. These allegations include obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting or aiding an insurrection. Trump has also faced legal scrutiny for his business dealings, with a New York judge denying a motion to dismiss concerning the irregular use of witnesses against him. The Supreme Court's decision to grant immunity to presidents for criminal acts committed while in office has further fueled debates about presidential accountability.

Trump's tweet about the jobs report

On June 1, 2018, President Donald Trump tweeted about the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics more than an hour before the report's official release. In his tweet, Trump wrote, "Looking forward to seeing the employment numbers at 8:30 this morning." This tweet appeared to break a federal rule, as it hinted at the positive nature of the report before its official release.

The Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Directive No. 3, implemented in 1985, states that employees of the Executive Branch must not comment publicly on monthly jobs reports until at least one hour after their official release. This directive aims to ensure that the statistics remain apolitical and are perceived as independent. Trump's tweet implied that the numbers would be strong, which could have given people an unfair advantage and eroded trust in trading. It also raised concerns about the potential impact on domestic and global markets, as a tweet from the President can move markets.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Trump's tweet, arguing that he did not break the rule because he did not explicitly mention the report's numbers. She also stated that Trump had been briefed on the report the previous night. However, critics, including former Obama and Bush administration officials, noted that Trump's tweet violated the federal protocol. They accused him of manipulating the market and tipping off positive numbers, which could have had a profound effect on financial markets.

Immunity for criminal conduct in office

In 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump has some immunity from prosecution for his official acts. The ruling was in relation to Trump's attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the 2020 election. The Supreme Court held that former presidents are immune from criminal liability for their official acts, and absolutely immune for some "core" acts.

The Supreme Court's decision was not unanimous, with the court's three Trump appointees and other Republican-appointed justices agreeing with the ruling. The decision was criticised by the three dissenting justices, who argued that the ruling placed the president above the law.

The ruling has been described as setting a dangerous precedent, giving presidents a blank check to break the law. The decision has also been criticised for removing the possibility of criminal accountability for the president, although other forms of accountability remain.

The ruling does not mean that the president is entirely immune from prosecution, as a president can still be prosecuted for unofficial, private acts. However, the court's broad conception of official acts makes it difficult to prosecute a president even for private criminal acts.

The immediate consequence of the decision is that it sends the federal prosecution of former President Trump for interfering in the 2020 election into disarray. The Supreme Court's ruling means that the lower courts must now determine whether the conduct at the centre of the charges against Trump was official or unofficial, which will likely delay any trial.

Obstruction of an official proceeding

The House of Representatives' January 6 committee urged the Justice Department to consider prosecuting Donald Trump for four different crimes, including the obstruction of an official proceeding. This refers to the January 6, 2021, joint session of Congress, during which the electoral votes were to be counted and Joe Biden was to be certified as the lawful winner.

The committee amassed substantial evidence that Trump sought to obstruct this process, including by summoning supporters to Washington on the day Congress was meeting and through a pressure campaign aimed at getting Vice President Mike Pence to prevent the votes from being certified.

The Justice Department has brought obstruction of an official proceeding charges against dozens of rioters. The charge is defined under the penal code as "corruptly" obstructing, impeding, or interfering with any official government proceeding and carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

In Trump's case, the DOJ alleges he obstructed Congress's certification of the electoral college results on January 6, including by creating fake election certificates declaring himself the winner of key swing states, as well as pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to disregard then-President-elect Joe Biden's electors and pushing the DOJ to falsely claim there were problems with the vote in Georgia or other states.

Trump was indicted in August 2023 on four charges, including the obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

Conspiracy to defraud the US

In August 2023, Donald Trump, the former president of the United States, was indicted on federal charges in the District of Columbia related to attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. One of the four criminal charges was conspiracy to defraud the United States. This is a general statute that makes it a crime to work with someone else to carry out fraud against the US.

The indictment alleges that Trump engaged in a "conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government".

Prosecutors allege that Trump and his co-conspirators "used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for [Trump]". They further allege that Trump "pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors" in his favour.

The House Jan. 6 committee has urged the Justice Department to consider prosecuting Trump for conspiracy to defraud the United States, among other charges. The committee's referrals to the Justice Department carry no legal weight, but focus has now shifted to the department and whether it will concur that the evidence is sufficient for prosecution.

Pardoning staff who broke the law

During his tenure as President of the United States, Donald Trump pardoned a significant number of individuals with whom he shared personal or political connections. Notably, this included five of his former campaign staff members and political advisors: Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Stephen K. Bannon, and George Papadopoulos.

Trump's pardoning of staff members who broke the law was not limited to his inner circle. He also pardoned individuals who had been convicted of fraud or public corruption, including several Republican congressmen, such as Chris Collins, Duncan D. Hunter, Steve Stockman, Rick Renzi, Robin Hayes, Mark Siljander, and Randall "Duke" Cunningham.

In addition to these pardons, there is also an allegation by a former Department of Homeland Security official, Miles Taylor, that Trump promised pardons to any officials who broke the law while carrying out his hardline immigration policies. According to Taylor, Trump wanted to shut down the US-Mexico border and was willing to pardon anyone who made it happen, even if it was illegal.

Frequently asked questions