The President Told Me To: The Public Authority Defense in the Trump Era

*J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 2025. Thank you to Professor Thomas Frampton for his encouragement of this project and feedback on several drafts. I also thank my friends and colleagues on the Virginia Law Review, especially Charlotte Karlsen, for their extraordinary hard work that greatly improved this piece. Finally, this Note would not have been possible without Matthew Babb, who inspired this project several years ago. I am forever grateful for his insightful comments on an early draft and for his continued mentorship.Show More

After hundreds were charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, several defendants argued they were only doing what President Trump told them to. More specifically, they raised the public authority defense as articulated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s Watergate-era case United States v. Barker. The defense involves a claim that an individual was authorized to engage in otherwise unlawful activity by a government official. But the D.C. Circuit was split on whether the government official in question must have the authority to make such an authorization, or if the defendant’s belief in the official’s apparent authority would suffice. The D.C. Circuit never clarified the standard, and now that President Trump has pardoned the January 6 defendants, the court is once again unable to do so. Nevertheless, the January 6 case is a prime test to determine the proper standard, and this is the prime time to do so, given the possibility of future prosecutions of current Trump Administration associates who may want to claim reliance on President Trump’s direction.

This Note makes four contributions: First, it describes the public authority defense case law, beginning with the actual-versus-apparent authority debate in Barker and its progeny. Second, this Note argues that the actual authority standard is correct based on existing law and policy. Third, it applies the actual and apparent authority standards to the January 6 case, illustrating how only the actual authority standard provides a workable rule. This conclusion makes clear that the public authority defense must fail for the January 6 defendants, but not for the reason courts thought. Fourth, this Note elucidates additional implications for the public authority defense and for those President Trump directs to take unlawful action during his second term. Ultimately, individuals cannot rely on a president’s orders to escape criminal culpability.

Introduction

President Trump’s approach to his second administration is best captured in his own tweet: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”¹ 1.Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), X (Feb. 15, 2025, 1:32 PM), https://x.com/realDo‌naldTrump/status/1890831570535055759 [https://perma.cc/Z9L5-VV6V].Show More Newly emboldened in his second term by broad criminal immunity,² 2.See Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2327 (2024). The president is also immune from civil liability for official actions taken while in office. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749 (1982).Show More President Trump has made clear with his words that he believes he is above the law and will act accordingly. It is less clear, however, what happens to those the President instructs to undertake unlawful action at his behest.³ 3.The Trump opinion only addressed the president, and it relied on the president’s unique position to hold that he is entitled to immunity. See Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. at 2327, 2330–31. Furthermore, absolute presidential immunity from civil suit does not extend to the president’s aides, so it is unlikely that criminal immunity would. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 808–13 (1982).Show More Perhaps these individuals have an affirmative defense: that the President told them to act unlawfully, and by virtue of his position as President of the United States, he legally authorized their otherwise criminal conduct. This defense is not merely hypothetical; it was raised by several of the individuals charged for their involvement with the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Although the January 6 rioters have all received pardons,⁴ 4.Proclamation No. 10,887, 90 Fed. Reg. 8331 (Jan. 29, 2025).Show More revisiting their cases is a vital exercise to understand how such a defense works in anticipation of similar prosecutions that may arise from conduct engaged in during President Trump’s second term.

Throughout the various January 6 legal proceedings, several defendants pointed to President Trump’s incendiary language to argue that he ordered them to “stop the steal.”⁵ 5.See infra notes 92–93.Show More During the presidential debate back in September 2020, in response to a question about whether he would condemn the far-right militia group the Proud Boys, President Trump told the group to “stand back and stand by.”⁶ 6.Kathleen Ronayne & Michael Kunzelman, Trump to Far-Right Extremists: ‘Stand Back and Stand By,’ AP News (Sept. 30, 2020, 2:52 PM), https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-race-and-ethnicity-donald-trump-chris-wallace-0b32339da25fbc9e8b7c7c7066a1d‌b0f [https://perma.cc/LR78-FCNV].Show More In the months leading up to January 6, he repeatedly espoused the claim that the presidential election was stolen from him.⁷ 7.H.R. Rep. No. 117-663, at 195, 213–16 (2022).Show More On the evening before the attack, President Trump again emphasized the election had been stolen and that his supporters had to do something to stop President-elect Joe Biden from taking office.⁸ 8.Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), X (Jan. 5, 2021, 5:05 PM), https://x.com/realDon‌aldTrump/status/1346578706437963777 [https://perma.cc/TK9L-UAP6].Show More Finally, in a speech at the rally on the National Mall on January 6, 2021, just before the attack on the Capitol began, he made the following remarks:

Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal. . . . And fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules. . . . And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. . . . So we’re going to . . . walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. . . . And we’re going to the Capitol, and we’re going to try and give . . . them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.⁹ 9.Transcript of Trump’s Speech at Rally Before US Capitol Riot, AP News (Jan. 13, 2021, 9:11 PM) [hereinafter Trump January 6 Speech Transcript], https://apnews.com/article/electio‌n-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-media-e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27. President Trump was impeached for inciting insurrection based in part on this language. H.R. Res. 24, 117th Cong., at 3 (2021). Incitement does not necessarily equate to authorization, but the fact that this language was considered incitement by Congress nonetheless helps explain the effect President Trump’s words had on his supporters.Show More

Defendants used this language to argue that President Trump legally authorized their break-in of the Capitol Building. For example, defendant and Proud Boys member William Chrestman argued the following in a motion requesting release on bail:

Trump’s incitement and enablement of this insurrectionary riot weighs heavily against the weight of the evidence prong, because the mob was given explicit permission and encouragement by the former President to do what they did. The American head of state directed a specific action; the Due Process Clause says that those who obeyed him have a viable defense against criminal liability.¹⁰ 10.Detention Memorandum at 11, United States v. Chrestman, 521 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (D. Kan. 2021) (No. 21-mj-08023) [hereinafter Detention Memorandum, Chrestman].Show More

Similarly, defendant Alexander Sheppard argued the following in his response to the government’s motion in limine:

Never before in our nation’s history has a sitting United States President, alongside other prominent elected officials, invited, encouraged, and condoned the public to engage in criminal conduct. . . . [T]he federal government now opposes Mr. Sheppard’s right to present a viable defense.¹¹ 11.Defendant’s Reply to Government’s Opposition to Notice of Public Authority Defense at 3–4, United States v. Sheppard, No. 21-cr-00203, 2022 WL 17978837 (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2022) [hereinafter Defendant’s Reply to Government’s Opposition, Sheppard].Show More

This is the public authority defense. As described by the Department of Justice, such a defense is available where a government official authorized the defendant to engage in otherwise unlawful conduct.¹² 12.U.S. Dep’t of Just., Crim. Res. Manual § 2055, https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/crimi‌nal-resource-manual-2055-public-authority-defense [https://perma.cc/85ZN-SK34].Show More This defense has its origins in a Watergate-era case, United States v. Barker.¹³ 13.546 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (per curiam).Show More There, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the trial court should have allowed the defendants to raise the defense that they broke into a psychiatrist’s office to steal information about the person who leaked the Pentagon Papers only because a White House official told them to.¹⁴ 14.Id. at 943, 954 (Wilkey, J.).Show More But the judges disagreed on how the defense should work. Judge Robert Merhige wrote that the defense required that the defendant receive authorization from someone who had the actual authority to make such an authorization.¹⁵ 15.Id. at 955 (Merhige, J.).Show More Judge Malcolm Wilkey wrote separately that the defendant’s belief in the official’s apparent authority would suffice.¹⁶ 16.Id. at 949 (Wilkey, J.).Show More That split has never been resolved.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the public authority defense was unavailable in the January 6 cases.¹⁷ 17.United States v. Chrestman, 525 F. Supp. 3d 14, 29, 33 (D.D.C. 2021).Show More While that conclusion is correct, the court’s reasoning is unpersuasive. The court did not clarify the correct standard for the defense and failed to wrestle with the factual comparisons to Barker.¹⁸ 18.See infra Section I.C.Show More To foreshadow, the court concluded that the public authority defense fails because President Trump never gave an affirmative authorization; however, Barker and its progeny do not impose such a strict requirement.¹⁹ 19.Infra Section I.C.Show More Engaging with the public authority defense case law reveals that the defense fails for the January 6 defendants not because President Trump never authorized their conduct, but because the President does not have the power to do so.

This Note is the first to give an in-depth treatment to the public authority defense case law, apply it to the January 6 defendants, and use this application to argue for the correct standard for the defense.²⁰ 20.The literature that addresses the public authority defense largely focuses instead on the related defense of entrapment by estoppel. See generally, e.g., John T. Parry, Culpability, Mistake, and Official Interpretations of Law, 25 Am. J. Crim. L. 1 (1997). But see generally Matthew Babb & Lauren Emmerich, Official Misrepresentations of the Law and Fairness, 17 Crim. L. & Phil. 83 (2023) (addressing both the entrapment by estoppel and public authority defense). A law review article from 1978 by attorney Stephen Kristovich addressed the apparent-versus-actual authority debate in Barker in its immediate wake and argued for the actual authority standard, but it did not have the benefit of analyzing the decades of case law following Barker. See generally Stephen M. Kristovich, United States v. Barker: Misapplication of the Reliance on an Official Interpretation of the Law Defense, 66 Calif. L. Rev. 809 (1978). Professor Alfredo Garcia explored the applicability of the public authority defense to a military officer turned January 6 defendant and concluded the public authority defense could not justify the January 6 conduct, but he neither established the precise contours of the defense nor explained why the elements laid out in either Barker opinion were not met. See generally Alfredo Garcia, The Public Authority Defense, January 6, 2021, and the Following Orders Defense: A Juxtaposition, in Human Flourishing: The End of Law 955 (W. Michael Reisman & Roza Pati eds., 2023). This Note pulls all the cases and doctrines together to argue for one articulation of the public authority defense using the January 6 test case to do so.Show More Part I explores the public authority defense case law, beginning with the diverging opinions in United States v. Barker that created the debate between actual and apparent authority. Part I then looks to other courts of appeals to draw out more precise contours of the defense. Part I concludes by examining how the January 6 defendants used this defense and why it was rejected.

Part II argues that the actual authority standard is the proper test for the public authority defense based on the weight of circuit-level authority, comparisons to the related doctrines of entrapment by estoppel and superior orders in military law, and public policy concerns. Part III then uses the January 6 defendants as a test case to further establish that only the actual authority standard produces a workable rule and legitimate outcome. This conclusion makes clear that the D.C. District Court had the right answer that the public authority defense should fail for the January 6 defendants, but for the wrong reason.

Part IV addresses implications of the January 6 case. First, the case draws out an additional limit on the defense beyond the actual authority standard, such that it should not work where there is a broad, public authorization. Second, the case suggests that the public authority defense is limited to specific factual circumstances and that Barker itself might be an exception rather than the rule. In conclusion, it is clear that in the event of future prosecutions of Trump Administration officials and associates, a defense that President Trump authorized their conduct is likely to fail.

1.  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), X (Feb. 15, 2025, 1:32 PM), https://x.com/realDo‌naldTrump/status/1890831570535055759 [https://perma.cc/Z9L5-VV6V]. ↑
2.  See Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2327 (2024). The president is also immune from civil liability for official actions taken while in office. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749 (1982). ↑
3.  The Trump opinion only addressed the president, and it relied on the president’s unique position to hold that he is entitled to immunity. See Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. at 2327, 2330–31. Furthermore, absolute presidential immunity from civil suit does not extend to the president’s aides, so it is unlikely that criminal immunity would. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 808–13 (1982). ↑
4.  Proclamation No. 10,887, 90 Fed. Reg. 8331 (Jan. 29, 2025). ↑
5.  See infra notes 92–93. ↑
6.  Kathleen Ronayne & Michael Kunzelman, Trump to Far-Right Extremists: ‘Stand Back and Stand By,’ AP News (Sept. 30, 2020, 2:52 PM), https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-race-and-ethnicity-donald-trump-chris-wallace-0b32339da25fbc9e8b7c7c7066a1d‌b0f [https://perma.cc/LR78-FCNV]. ↑
7.  H.R. Rep. No. 117-663, at 195, 213–16 (2022). ↑
8.  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), X (Jan. 5, 2021, 5:05 PM), https://x.com/realDon‌aldTrump/status/1346578706437963777 [https://perma.cc/TK9L-UAP6]. ↑
9.  Transcript of Trump’s Speech at Rally Before US Capitol Riot, AP News (Jan. 13, 2021, 9:11 PM) [hereinafter Trump January 6 Speech Transcript], https://apnews.com/article/electio‌n-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-media-e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27. President Trump was impeached for inciting insurrection based in part on this language. H.R. Res. 24, 117th Cong., at 3 (2021). Incitement does not necessarily equate to authorization, but the fact that this language was considered incitement by Congress nonetheless helps explain the effect President Trump’s words had on his supporters. ↑
10.  Detention Memorandum at 11, United States v. Chrestman, 521 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (D. Kan. 2021) (No. 21-mj-08023) [hereinafter Detention Memorandum, Chrestman]. ↑
11.  Defendant’s Reply to Government’s Opposition to Notice of Public Authority Defense at 3–4, United States v. Sheppard, No. 21-cr-00203, 2022 WL 17978837 (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2022) [hereinafter Defendant’s Reply to Government’s Opposition, Sheppard]. ↑
12.  U.S. Dep’t of Just., Crim. Res. Manual § 2055, https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/crimi‌nal-resource-manual-2055-public-authority-defense [https://perma.cc/85ZN-SK34]. ↑
13.  546 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (per curiam). ↑
14.  Id. at 943, 954 (Wilkey, J.). ↑
15.  Id. at 955 (Merhige, J.). ↑
16.  Id. at 949 (Wilkey, J.). ↑
17.  United States v. Chrestman, 525 F. Supp. 3d 14, 29, 33 (D.D.C. 2021). ↑
18.  See infra Section I.C. ↑
19.  Infra Section I.C. ↑

20.  The literature that addresses the public authority defense largely focuses instead on the related defense of entrapment by estoppel. See generally, e.g., John T. Parry, Culpability, Mistake, and Official Interpretations of Law, 25 Am. J. Crim. L. 1 (1997). But see generally Matthew Babb & Lauren Emmerich, Official Misrepresentations of the Law and Fairness, 17 Crim. L. & Phil. 83 (2023) (addressing both the entrapment by estoppel and public authority defense). A law review article from 1978 by attorney Stephen Kristovich addressed the apparent-versus-actual authority debate in Barker in its immediate wake and argued for the actual authority standard, but it did not have the benefit of analyzing the decades of case law following Barker. See generally Stephen M. Kristovich, United States v. Barker: Misapplication of the Reliance on an Official Interpretation of the Law Defense, 66 Calif. L. Rev. 809 (1978). Professor Alfredo Garcia explored the applicability of the public authority defense to a military officer turned January 6 defendant and concluded the public authority defense could not justify the January 6 conduct, but he neither established the precise contours of the defense nor explained why the elements laid out in either Barker opinion were not met. See generally Alfredo Garcia, The Public Authority Defense, January 6, 2021, and the Following Orders Defense: A Juxtaposition, in Human Flourishing: The End of Law 955 (W. Michael Reisman & Roza Pati eds., 2023). This Note pulls all the cases and doctrines together to argue for one articulation of the public authority defense using the January 6 test case to do so. ↑