Trump’s Use of Pardon Power Reflects a Shift in Presidential Norms

Donald Trump has utilized his presidential pardon powers more extensively than his predecessors to shield loyalists, assure associates that legal repercussions can be avoided, and reduce prosecutorial pressure on allies who might testify against him.

Numerous legal scholars have voiced strong criticism of Trump’s approach to the pardon power.

Rachel Barkow, a law professor at New York University, observed that among the more than 1,600 pardons and commutations granted by Trump, only a minute number address traditional concerns such as correcting miscarriages of justice, mitigating excessive sentencing for nonviolent offenses, or countering prosecutorial overreach.

Instead, the vast majority of these pardons have been awarded to individuals convicted of crimes committed in support of Trump’s unfounded claims regarding the 2020 election, including participants in the January 6 Capitol riot, as well as those convicted of offenses resembling the accusations leveled against Trump himself, such as bribery and financial fraud.

Frank Bowman III, professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri and former special counsel to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, contends that Trump’s misuse of the pardon power is part of a broader effort to dismantle legal constraints that limit his pursuit of unchecked political authority and personal enrichment.

Bowman has argued that this strategy includes using pardons to protect individuals implicated in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and to shield others who might otherwise provide damaging testimony.

According to Bowman, these pardons generally fall into distinct categories, often involving allies who have committed crimes in defense of Trump’s political agenda or who might otherwise pose a threat to his interests.

Legal experts also highlight two defining features of Trump’s pardons: first, they frequently involve offenses similar to those Trump has been accused of; second, they serve as signals to appointees and associates that legal violations committed on his behalf will likely be pardoned, thereby discouraging accountability.

Laurence Tribe, emeritus professor of law at Harvard, has emphasized that this pattern effectively encourages a culture of impunity within the administration.

Similarly, Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, notes that Trump’s pardons desensitize the public to a transactional style of governance in which the state’s power is wielded to punish enemies and reward friends.

Trump appears particularly sympathetic to individuals who, like him, claim to be victims of a politicized and weaponized legal system.

Kimberly Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, has argued that Trump’s pardons represent blatant pay-to-play corruption, used to reward personal loyalty and significant donors, a practice unprecedented in its explicitness.

Dan Kobil, a law professor at Capital University, observes that Trump’s pardon decisions reveal a unique interpretation of the law, one that prioritizes personal and political gain over the principles of justice.

A central question raised by Trump’s use of pardons is their legality and constitutionality. Opinions among legal experts are divided, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling affirming broad presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent warned that this ruling replaces the principle of equality before the law with a presumption that the president is above the law for all official acts.

James Sample, a law professor at Hofstra University, suggests that some of Trump’s pardons could face legal challenges, particularly when issued in exchange for personal favors or political loyalty.

Sample points out that while presidential pardons enjoy broad constitutional protection, they can simultaneously be legal yet deeply unethical.

Paul Rosenzweig, a former Homeland Security official and current law lecturer, describes the paradox of Trump’s pardons as lawful under Supreme Court rulings yet representing unparalleled corruption.

Rosenzweig further argues that the pardons granted to January 6 insurrectionists underscore the extraordinary nature of Trump’s abuse of the pardon power.

Although Trump’s second-term pardons, especially those related to January 6, have drawn significant attention, his willingness to misuse pardon authority was apparent during his first term.

In 2022, Albert Alschuler, a law and criminology professor at the University of Chicago, published a detailed study labeling Trump’s use of the pardon power as corrupt, highlighting cases that would have alarmed the framers of the Constitution.

Throughout his presidencies, Trump has openly flaunted legal norms, a hallmark that has allowed him to evade consequences that might have beenfalling on previous presidents.

For example, when President Bill Clinton controversially pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive indicted on multiple charges, he faced widespread condemnation from his own party—a reaction notably muted in response to Trump’s far more numerous and contentious pardons.

This raises a critical question about whether Trump has effectively lowered the standards of political integrity in the United States, normalizing behavior once widely regarded as shameful.

Current evidence suggests that this erosion of ethical expectations is indeed underway.