The Hoax

The President Can Do Anything, Making Way for “Death Squads” And “Absolutely Anything”

The presidential immunity hoax claims that the SCOTUS ruling allows a president to act without legal consequence, including extreme actions like using firing squads. This misrepresentation distorts the court’s decision, which actually affirms that a president is not above the law and can be held accountable for unofficial conduct. The notion that the ruling permits unchecked presidential power, such as ordering executions without repercussions, is a gross exaggeration intended to mislead and inflame public opinion.

“This is a death squad ruling. This is a ruling that says that as long as you can construe it as an official or quasi-official act, you can do absolutely anything. Absolutely anything, and never be held accountable, not only when you are president, but forever.” – Rachel Maddow

---

What Really Happened

The Supreme Court Ruling Confirms A President Is Not Above The Law

In reality, the Supreme Court’s ruling confirms that a president is not above the law and can be held accountable for unofficial conduct. The ruling does not permit unchecked presidential power.

“The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims…

Indeed, the majority stated that Trump’s alleged ‘private scheme with private actors’ to create alternative slates of electors ‘cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function.’ If that is established by the trial court, then Trump’s actions would not be protected by any sort of immunity.”

Jonathan Turley, Hold off the death squads: Highly misleading coverage of SCOTUS immunity decision

---

Hoaxology | How The Hoax Was Made

Here’s how this hoax was made.

Sensationalized Reporting

This hoax relied heavily on sensationalized reporting to mislead the public about the Supreme Court ruling. By framing the decision as enabling “death squads” or allowing a president to “do absolutely anything,” the media exaggerated the implications far beyond what the court actually stated. Instead of presenting the ruling as a clarification of the limits of presidential immunity, outlets like Rachel Maddow painted it as a dystopian scenario, misleading audiences into believing the decision granted unchecked power to the president.

Highlighting Emotional Reactions

Rather than focus on the legal nuances of the Supreme Court’s decision, the media emphasized extreme and inflammatory reactions. By showcasing exaggerated claims and alarmist interpretations, they sought to manipulate the audience’s emotions. Phrases like “death squad ruling” were intended to shock and provoke outrage, diverting attention from the reality that the ruling confirmed presidents are not above the law and can be held accountable for unofficial actions.

Out-of-Context Quote

The hoax also distorted the Supreme Court’s ruling through selective omissions and misrepresentation of key statements. By excluding clarifying details that explicitly stated the limits of presidential immunity, the media created a false narrative. For example, the court noted that unofficial actions or private schemes would not be protected, but this context was conveniently left out, allowing the hoax to suggest a much broader and inaccurate interpretation of the ruling.

Appeal to Fear

The hoax tapped into public fears of authoritarianism by suggesting the decision could lead to unchecked presidential power and extreme abuses, such as executing political enemies. This appeal to fear exploited existing anxieties about executive overreach, creating an exaggerated worst-case scenario that bore little resemblance to the actual decision. By presenting a terrifying but fictional outcome, the hoax successfully stoked distrust and panic.

---

𝕏 @AmericanDebunk

Donate to AmericanDebunk.com