Lo storico: emergenza corruzione: “Donald rischia nuove indagini”

The Limits of Presidential Immunity

The Constitutional Court’s decision granting immunity to former presidents for official acts has created a broad shield that protects Trump from prosecution related to his time in office. This includes decisions made during his administration, policy implementations, and actions taken under the guise of executive authority. Legal experts note that this immunity is not absolute—it does not extend to private conduct or actions taken before or after his presidency—but it does cover a wide range of presidential functions.

Complementing this judicial protection is an agreement between the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service that prevents the reopening of tax investigations into matters that occurred during a president’s term. This means that even if allegations of tax impropriety or financial misconduct emerged, they would be difficult to pursue through standard legal channels once the individual has left office.

As a result, Del Pero suggests that Trump faces limited criminal liability for actions taken while president. The possibility of a self-pardon, similar to the one speculated for Hunter Biden, further reduces immediate legal exposure, though such a move would remain politically contentious and legally untested in the case of a former president pardoning himself.

Congressional Oversight as a Political Counterweight

While judicial avenues may be closed, the legislative branch retains powerful tools for accountability. If the Democratic Party wins control of the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms, it could initiate formal investigations through its congressional committees. These bodies have the authority to issue subpoenas, compel document production, and require public testimony under oath—proceedings that, while not resulting in criminal charges, can generate significant political fallout.

Such investigations would not be limited to narrow legal inquiries; they could examine patterns of behaviour, conflicts of interest, and the use of public office for private gain. Areas of potential scrutiny include Trump’s business dealings, insider trading allegations, the handling of classified materials, and the broader culture of influence-peddling that has characterised aspects of his administration.

Del Pero highlights the Epstein files as a particularly sensitive issue—though he cautions that they may not be the most legally consequential matter, their symbolic weight and the possibility of undisclosed contents could fuel intense media and public scrutiny. The mere prospect of renewed focus on these documents could reignite debates about accountability and transparency.

Election Integrity and the Risk of Political Instability

Beyond investigations into past conduct, Del Pero warns that the greater danger lies in the potential interference with the electoral process itself. Trump has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of Democratic victories, claiming without evidence that they result from fraud or manipulation. This rhetoric, he argues, contributes to a toxic environment that undermines public trust in elections and increases the risk of civil unrest.

Of particular concern is the possibility of federal-level interference aimed at disadvantaging mail-in voting or suppressing turnout among key demographics. Such actions, even if indirect, could be construed as efforts to tilt the playing field and would likely provoke strong opposition from voting rights groups, state officials, and international observers.

The professor stresses that safeguarding the integrity of the 2026 midterms is essential—not only to ensure a fair outcome but also to prevent the normalization of tactics that erode democratic norms. Preventing violence and deterring efforts to delegitimize results are critical challenges for election officials, civil society, and responsible political leaders.

Implications for Business and Investor Confidence

The ongoing legal and political uncertainty surrounding Trump has tangible implications for markets and business planning. Persistent allegations of corruption, conflicts of interest, and erratic policy shifts—particularly in areas like trade tariffs and foreign policy, including the stated confrontation with Iran—can create volatility that complicates long-term investment decisions.

For multinational corporations and investors operating in or with exposure to the U.S., the risk of sudden regulatory shifts, sanctions, or trade disruptions remains a live concern. While Trump’s immunity may shield him from prosecution, the perception of instability can affect currency valuations, supply chain planning, and investor sentiment.

Moreover, the prospect of congressional investigations could lead to increased scrutiny of corporate lobbying practices, political donations, and revolving-door employment between government and industry. Businesses with close ties to the administration may find themselves under renewed examination, prompting a need for greater transparency and compliance vigilance.

What this means

Although Donald Trump may be largely insulated from criminal prosecution due to constitutional protections and inter-agency agreements, the democratic process itself offers a mechanism for accountability. Should voters elect a Democratic-controlled House in 2026, the ensuing investigations could shed light on alleged misconduct during his presidency, even if they do not result in legal penalties. More immediately, the real danger may lie not in the courtroom, but in the polling station—where efforts to undermine trust in elections and stoke division could threaten the stability of the democratic system. For businesses, policymakers, and citizens alike, the coming months will test not only the resilience of American institutions but also the enduring importance of transparency, rule of law, and civic responsibility in safeguarding both governance and economic confidence.