How Donald Trump turned presidential pardons into a political weapon | Explained | World News

The signature of the President of the United States can expunge a conviction, shorten a prison sentence, or restore lost rights. It is one of the most comprehensive and least constrained powers in American public life. President Donald Trump used this authority to an extraordinary extent in his second term. More than 1,840 amnesty bills have been issued, benefiting cryptocurrency tycoons, former office holders, reality television personalities and hundreds of political allies. Experts say this model marks a sharp break with long-standing practices and turns compassion into a tool of loyalty and influence.

A power rooted in the Constitution

Presidential pardons can be traced back to debates during America’s founding period. Influenced by the arguments of figures such as Alexander Hamilton, the Constitution gave the president the power to grant pardons for federal crimes.

There are two main forms. Amnesty forgives crime and restores civil rights. A commutation reduces the sentence but does not prejudice the conviction.

The power is broad. It cannot be used in impeachment trials and applies only to federal crimes, not state convictions. Beyond that, presidents have broad discretion and little obligation to explain themselves.

How did the system once work?

The process followed a stable path for nearly a century. The applications were examined by the Amnesty Prosecutor’s Office within the Ministry of Justice. Background checks were frequently performed by the FBI. The recommendations were then forwarded to the White House, where the president made the final decision.

Margaret Love, who served as a US pardon attorney under Presidents George HW Bush and Bill Clinton, said the system was once stable and understated. It was not free from politics, but it had a structure and professional review.

According to Love, the tensions began during Bill Clinton’s presidency. As a Democrat wary of appearing soft on crime, Clinton issued relatively few pardons for most of her time in office. Then, on the last day in January 2001, he issued 177 amnesty decisions at once.

Among them was financier Marc Rich, who fled the country amid accusations of tax evasion and blackmail. Donations linked to Democratic causes by Rich’s ex-wife triggered a firestorm of criticism and allegations of favor-peddling. This incident damaged trust in the system and fueled claims that politics trumped principles.

Trump’s central approach

Critics argue that traditional measures have been further weakened under Donald Trump.

The White House stated that a team of lawyers reviews the applications before they reach the president. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that Trump is the “ultimate decision-maker” and that many pardons are aimed at correcting what she sees as abuses under President Joe Biden’s administration.

In the West Wing, senior figures such as chief of staff Susie Wiles and White House counsel David Warrington were reportedly overseeing the requests. In early 2025, Trump appointed Alice Marie Johnson, whose life sentence he commuted during his first term, as a pardon adviser.

At the same time, turmoil within the Ministry of Justice also raised questions. In March, U.S. Amnesty Attorney Liz Oyer said actor Mel Gibson was removed from office after rejecting a request in connection with restoring his gun rights. His replacement, Ed Martin, was described by critics as openly political. After Trump pardoned the Virginia sheriff, Martin publicly shared: “There is no MAGA left behind.”

Legal experts say it appears the Justice Department now plays a lesser or more obscure role as decisions are concentrated within the president’s inner circle.

Loyalty rewarded

Some of the most controversial pardons have gone to supporters of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement, including hundreds of people convicted for the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Others were prominent businessmen. In October, Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao, founder of cryptocurrency exchange Binance, for money laundering violations. Around the same time, Binance unveiled a stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency venture partially owned by the Trump family. The company has denied any wrongdoing, but critics have pointed out the overlap.

More recently, a banker received a pardon after his daughter donated a significant amount to a pro-Trump political action committee. Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters called the decision a “pay-to-play” arrangement.

Observers argue that the scope and nature of the amnesties risk excluding ordinary applicants without wealth, connections or political standing.

Foreign policy and mixed messages

At times, the election appeared to conflict with Trump’s own rhetoric.

In November, he pardoned former president of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of drug trafficking in the United States. The decision dovetails uncomfortably with Trump’s hard line on narcotics and cross-border crimes. This also coincided with the election in Honduras, where Trump expressed support for Hernández’s political allies.

Trump called on Israel’s president to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over corruption charges, drawing attention abroad to the far-reaching nature of American executive power.

Experts warn that such actions could undermine Washington’s moral authority as it pressures other countries to protect judicial independence and democratic standards.

testing the limits

The power of amnesty, despite its breadth, is not unlimited.

In December, Trump announced he would pardon former Colorado county clerk Tina Peters, who was convicted in 2020 of election interference charges tied to false claims of voter fraud. However, his crimes were prosecuted at the state level. A president cannot overturn a state’s convictions. Peters remains in prison, but Trump has publicly called on Colorado authorities to release him.

Constitutional scholars also note that pardons cannot cover future crimes, nullify impeachment, or override other constitutional protections. Trump claimed he had the “absolute right” to pardon himself during his first term; this claim has never been tested in court.

The unresolved question is how far a determined president can push the boundaries and who will stop him.

Calls for reform

The debate reignited the reform debate. Some point to state-level systems as possible models. In Delaware, for example, a Board of Pardons holds public hearings and makes recommendations to the governor. Transactions are open, decisions are announced.

Supporters of change argue that transparency and shared decision-making can rebuild trust. Others go further, proposing constitutional limits on the power itself.

But for now, power is firmly in the hands of the president. By granting more than 1,840 pardons in just over a year, Donald Trump has shown how far-reaching and how political this power can become.