Trump v. United States’s discovery of broad immunity has rendered the presidency more imperial and unaccountable. This Article tackles four questions. First, are the Constitution’s grants of specific and distinct privileges and immunities for federal officials illustrative of a broader, if implicit, set of privileges and immunities? Second, what limits, if any, does the Constitution impose on the power of Congress to criminalize the constitutional acts of the President, members of Congress, and the courts? Consider whether a federal judge can be prosecuted for her allegedly corrupt judicial judgment, one meant to satisfy a bribe previously received. Third, even if the Constitution grants immunity for constitutional acts, does it bestow any immunity for statutory acts? The Court held there was at least a presumptive immunity for presidents without pausing to discuss why the Constitution would implicitly immunize a branch’s exercise of statutory authority. Finally, when should we read a generic statute to cover the official acts of constitutional officers? Consider whether federal obstruction statutes should be construed to apply to judges and presidents as they exercise their constitutional powers over trials and prosecutions. As to the first question, the Constitution carefully conveys to each branch a unique and limited set of privileges. It is a mistake to read the Constitution as if it implicitly bestowed further shields. Instead, Congress may choose to bestow additional needful and appropriate safeguards to the three branches. Regarding the second question, Congress can criminalize the following sorts of acts: violations of the separation of powers, corrupt exercises of constitutional authority, and acts that transgress federal statutory law. Hence, a corrupt pardon or a corrupt judicial order can form the basis of a federal crime even though each might seem to be authorized by the Constitution. On the third matter, even if one thought the Constitution immunized certain exercises of constitutional powers, there is little reason to suppose it also immunizes the exercise of statutory powers by constitutional officers. On the final issue, we ought to disfavor reading generic criminal laws as if they apply to exercises of constitutional powers. We should be wary of supposing that Congress sought to police the constitutionally authorized acts of constitutional actors via general prohibitions that principally regulate ordinary persons.