As a former felon, I recognize the deep significance of a presidential pardon. It’s a chance for redemption, a signal that society has acknowledged your rehabilitation, and an opportunity to wipe clean the stain of a criminal record. While I would be grateful for such an opportunity, watching how President Donald Trump wielded this power in his first term—and his promises for the future—invokes questions far beyond personal freedom. It’s a fascinating and concerning exploration of the intersection between politics, loyalty, and justice.
Who Received Pardons During Trump’s First Term?
Trump’s first term saw a number of high-profile pardons, many of which raised eyebrows across political and legal landscapes. Figures like Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and others closely connected to Trump’s political orbit were given clemency, sparking criticism that Trump’s pardon power was being used to reward loyalty rather than further justice. Flynn, for example, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 election. His pardon raised questions about whether justice was truly being served or if it was a political favor aimed at protecting those in Trump’s inner circle.
Similarly, Roger Stone, a long-time Trump confidant, was convicted of lying to Congress and witness tampering in the Russia investigation. His pardon further fueled the idea that Trump was using his authority to absolve political allies.
These pardons were not just about forgiveness—they became symbols of the president’s power and willingness to protect his most loyal supporters, even when they ran afoul of the law. This selective use of pardons, aimed at those who maintained their loyalty to Trump, exemplifies how the executive pardon power can be used to reinforce personal and political allegiances rather than ensuring fair justice.
What Lies Ahead: The Jan. 6 Insurrectionists
As we approach the possibility of Trump’s second term, the rhetoric surrounding his pardon power is even more alarming. In recent comments, Trump has openly suggested he would pardon individuals convicted for their roles in the January 6th insurrection—a move that sends a chilling message about how he might use executive power in the future. These potential pardons would not just absolve individuals who participated in an attack on democracy; they would also signal that political violence is forgivable if it is done in allegiance to a cause Trump deems just.
In the article by Slate , this scenario is painted in vivid terms—if Trump is re-elected, we could witness a sweeping use of pardons to exonerate those convicted for their involvement in January 6. The ethical implications of this are staggering. By pardoning insurrectionists, Trump would effectively normalize political violence, making it clear that loyalty to his cause trumps legal accountability.
The broader implication of this is the degradation of the rule of law. If pardons are handed out not based on an individual’s rehabilitation, but on their political allegiance, it undermines the very fabric of justice in the United States. The executive pardon, intended as a tool for mercy and fairness, could instead become a weapon used to reward those who act on Trump’s behalf, even when their actions threaten the democratic system.
Contributions and Loyalties: Pardons as Currency
It’s important to examine how contributions to Trump’s political machine intertwine with his pardon decisions. Several recipients of his first-term pardons were not just political allies but also individuals who contributed significantly to his campaign or supported his administration in meaningful ways. The pardon of Steve Bannon, who had been charged with defrauding donors in a scheme to build Trump’s border wall, is one glaring example. Bannon was a critical figure in Trump’s rise to power and played a central role in shaping his populist message.
This practice of rewarding supporters with pardons creates a dangerous precedent where legal forgiveness is traded as political currency. The message is clear: support the president, and you could be absolved of your legal transgressions, no matter how severe.
What Does This Mean for Justice?
If Trump wins a second term and follows through with his promise to pardon January 6 participants, it could set a precedent that political loyalty is more important than upholding the rule of law. The executive pardon power, one of the most significant and unchecked powers of the presidency, could be used to undermine democracy itself. Rather than promoting justice, it could foster a culture where allegiance to Trump becomes the ultimate protection against legal accountability.
For individuals like myself, who understand the profound impact of criminal convictions and the value of a second chance, this weaponization of pardons is deeply unsettling. Pardons should be about rehabilitation and justice, not about rewarding political allies or those who commit crimes in the name of political causes. The risk we face is that future pardons under a Trump administration will be less about fairness and more about fostering an authoritarian culture of loyalty.
Conclusion
The promise of pardons in a potential second Trump term raises critical ethical questions about the proper use of presidential power. By pardoning political allies and January 6 insurrectionists, Trump threatens to reshape the very purpose of executive clemency into a tool of political favor and retaliation. The implications for justice, democracy, and the rule of law are profound, and as we approach future elections, these issues must be at the forefront of national discourse.
Sources
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/09/jan-6-pardons-scary-second-trump-term.html
