Trump’s Unprecedented Use of Presidential Pardons Sparks Debate Over Rule of Law

President Trump’s recent flurry of pardons shows no indication of slowing down. In just the past few weeks, he has granted clemency to two former Republican officials convicted of tax fraud, a reality TV couple found guilty of fraud whose daughter spoke at the Republican National Convention, another individual convicted of tax offenses whose mother raised substantial funds for Trump’s campaigns, and a far-right sheriff accused of accepting bribes for deputy credentials.

This tally excludes others, such as participants in the January 6 Capitol attack—about 1,500 individuals have been charged or sentenced—and does not cover potential pardons Trump has hinted at for two men imprisoned for plotting to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic Governor.

While the American clemency system is intended to convey mercy, alleviate suffering, and help restore communities, its application has long been criticized for perceived misuse. Previous presidents have faced accusations of corruptly wielding pardons, including recent preemptive pardons within political families.

However, President Trump has transformed the clemency power into a tool for political patronage—what can be termed “patronage pardoning”—whereby penalties for misconduct by loyalists are conspicuously reduced or erased. This approach functions as a public pledge to shield and reward political allies regardless of the legality of their actions.

As one official involved in the pardon process recently remarked, the mantra appears to be “No MAGA left behind.”

The hallmark of patronage pardoning lies in using clemency to insulate regime loyalists from the consequences of criminal behavior. The more partisan and controversial the pardons, the stronger the message sent to those contemplating wrongdoing in support of the administration. These pardons may encourage violations of standard criminal laws as well as obstructive acts such as perjury, interference with justice, and defiance of court orders.

Robust democracies do not endorse systems where loyalty guarantees protection from accountability. Instead, this practice is part of a broader legal strategy that threatens the foundational rule of law by treating law enforcement not as impartial agents serving the public but as instruments to enforce political allegiance—prosecuting adversaries while sparing allies in a highly performative manner.

The constitutional design poses challenges to countering this trend. The president’s clemency authority is broad and absolute, covering all federal offenses except impeachment cases. Historical rulings have confirmed this power as unlimited, even allowing pardons without prior or pending prosecutions. Attempts by Congress to restrict this power have been struck down, and recent judicial opinions strongly suggest that presidents cannot be prosecuted for corruptly exercising clemency.

Patronage pardoning carries unique risks because it grants presidents accumulating leverage. Each pardon granted for loyalist misconduct increases the president’s power to shield future offenses, creating a dangerous feedback loop where wrongdoing fuels further abuses.

Consider officials who commit perjury before Congress and face potential criminal charges. Even if the Justice Department declines to prosecute, the statute of limitations for such offenses is five years, meaning pardons remain essential to avoid imprisonment. This dynamic incentivizes repeated dishonesty, with each new lie granting the president additional leverage.

This scenario is not merely theoretical. The president’s pardon influence extends over figures with significant political and economic clout. Allegations have surfaced about high-profile individuals potentially violating laws related to unauthorized data access and national security regulations, yet pardon power could shield them from consequences.

Although the clemency power serves important purposes, including mercy and reconciliation, its framers could not foresee the complexities of modern politics. They believed impeachment and the threat of public disgrace would prevent systematic abuse, but current political polarization has weakened these safeguards.

Nonetheless, several legal strategies could mitigate the harm caused by patronage pardons. First, because presidential clemency only applies to federal crimes, states retain authority to prosecute overlapping offenses, including conspiracy charges that can be pursued when conspirators act across jurisdictions. Recent prosecutions of those interfering with the 2020 Electoral College certification illustrate this potential.

Second, federal courts can impose civil contempt sanctions to enforce compliance with judicial orders. Unlike criminal contempt, civil contempt is coercive, carrying fines and jail time that presidents cannot pardon. These escalating penalties provide strong incentives for officials to obey court directives without relying on executive enforcement.

Third, empowered state and local officials should be prepared to pursue civil lawsuits seeking damages for wrongful conduct. While pardons cover criminal offenses, civil liability remains a viable deterrent, especially in jurisdictions like the District of Columbia, where the president can pardon local offenses but cannot shield defendants from civil suits. Though resource constraints have limited such efforts, they represent an important avenue for accountability.

What has been obscured in recent years is the traditional role of clemency as an act of mercy and reconciliation. Previous presidents have used pardons to heal divisions, such as Lincoln’s conditional pardons for former Confederates, Truman’s commutations for conscientious objectors, and Ford’s pardon of Nixon for Watergate-related offenses.

While the pardon power inherently risks favoritism and conflicts of interest—as seen in historical examples where pardons benefited family or political allies—President Trump’s approach has uniquely made patronage pardons a central feature of his governance style.

American institutions face a critical challenge to respond effectively. Doing so will require innovative legal approaches, coordinated efforts across jurisdictions, and the political will to uphold the rule of law.