&w=3840&q=100)
Trump on pardon spree again: Why he defies political gravity
By using pardons to reward allies, punish opponents, and project power, Donald Trump is reshaping the meaning of presidential mercy—and facing little political consequence for it read more
President Donald Trump's latest wave of pardons shows he is not only continuing but intensifying a strategy from his first term: using pardons as both a reward for supporters and a tool to show his power. In the last days of May 2025, Trump issued numerous pardon and shorter prison sentences (commutations) to people like political allies, rich donors, famous people and others who support his views.
Some of the people Trump pardoned included former Representative Michael Grimm (who was convicted of tax evasion), rapper NBA YoungBoy (who was convicted on gun and drug charges), former Connecticut Governor John Rowland and others connected to Trump's political world or causes.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
This unapologetic use of presidential power shows that Trump pays scant regard to political gravity and seems to face few consequences for it. His actions don't just repeat what he did before—they go further. They show that being loyal or useful to Trump may matter more for getting a pardon than showing regret, being rehabilitated, or having a fair reason.
Constitutional muscle of presidential mercy
The US Constitution grants presidents sweeping clemency powers: Article II, Section 2 allows the president to 'grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment'.
There are no required procedures or oversight mechanisms—no Congressional veto, no judicial review. Traditionally, this power is exercised with great caution, often following a lengthy review process via the Department of Justice's Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Historically, presidents have reserved controversial pardons for the final days of their terms attempting to insulate themselves from political fallout. Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974, Bill Clinton's pardon of financier Marc Rich in 2001 and even Joe Biden's preemptive clemency for his son and political allies fall into this pattern. Trump has shattered that precedent.
Trump's current use of pardons shows almost no regard for this tradition. He is not only issuing pardons mid-term and in full public view, but he is doing so repeatedly, even defiantly, reinforcing a broader narrative: that the justice system is corrupt when it targets his allies—and legitimate only when it serves his interests.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Allies, donors and ideological symbols
This month's clemency spree includes a familiar cast: convicted politicians, conservative media personalities, donors and even reality TV stars with connections to Trump-world. Grimm, the former New York Congressman who pled guilty to tax fraud, had long argued his prosecution was politically motivated. Trump's pardon of Grimm was explicitly framed as a correction of what the president calls 'a weaponised justice system'.
Former Governor Rowland of Connecticut, another recipient, was convicted of public corruption not once but twice, and yet Trump used his pardon power to rehabilitate him. NBA YoungBoy (Kentrell Gaulden), who was convicted on gun charges and involved in prescription drug fraud, also benefitted—despite no prior political affiliation with Trump—after lobbying efforts by Alice Marie Johnson, now Trump's 'pardon czar'.
Johnson, herself a former inmate whose sentence Trump commuted in 2018, now plays a visible role in granting clemency, further politicising a process that once operated largely behind closed doors.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Perhaps most controversially, Trump spared reality TV personalities Todd and Julie Chrisley, convicted of orchestrating a $30 million bank fraud scheme. Their daughter, Savannah Chrisley, who had actively campaigned for Trump and addressed the 2024 Republican National Convention, was reportedly notified directly by Trump during a phone call captured on video in the Oval Office.
These examples speak to a pattern: Trump's clemency is most often extended to those who are part of his political narrative or who serve a function in bolstering his personal mythology. Whether it's a Maga-friendly sheriff, a wealthy donor's son or media figures aligned with his ideology, the common thread is unmistakable.
Rewriting of political norms
Most presidents fear backlash from granting clemency to controversial figures. Trump, however, seems not only immune to such repercussions but emboldened by the conflict they generate. This is in part because Trump has spent years reframing the justice system as inherently politicised—particularly when it comes to his allies.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Trump's former interim US attorney, Ed Martin, now acts as his pardon attorney and recently declared 'No Maga left behind' on social media. This slogan, while clearly partisan, also implies a loyalty-based framework for justice. Trump, in this view, is not just a president but a protector of his political community and the pardon power is one of his most potent tools.
In practice, this has meant pardoning over 1,500 January-6 defendants, many of whom were convicted of violent crimes against police officers. It's a radical act that has redefined what presidential clemency can be: not just an act of mercy, but a gesture of tribal solidarity.
Public polling after those pardons showed overwhelming disapproval among Americans, with 83 per cent opposing clemency for violent offenders from the Capitol riot. But inside Trump's base, such moves are often celebrated as retribution against a biased state apparatus.
Political capital and the cost of clemency
One of the most striking aspects of Trump's pardon spree is the apparent absence of political cost. Traditional political wisdom suggests that using presidential pardons for self-serving or partisan purposes invites scandal, backlash or electoral punishment. Trump's presidency challenges this assumption.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
His core supporters remain steadfast, interpreting his actions through a lens he has carefully constructed over years: that he is a victim of 'deep state' persecution and so are his allies. When Trump extends pardons to convicted criminals who support him—or are supported by people who support him—he is praised for fighting back and the 2024 election showed he was not penalised for vowing to pardon those tried to shake up the democratic fundamentals of the US.
This phenomenon is especially visible in the case of Paul Walczak, a nursing home executive who pleaded guilty to tax crimes. His mother, Elizabeth Fago, a prominent GOP fundraiser and Trump ally, reportedly used a $1 million-per-person fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago as a platform to advocate for her son's clemency. Within three weeks of the event, Trump signed the pardon, American media reported. The narrative here is not just one of corruption—it's the transformation of transactional politics into clemency policy.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Blurring of mercy and favouritism
Trump's use of the pardon power has increasingly resembled a rewards system—akin to political patronage. The beneficiaries are disproportionately white-collar criminals, political operatives, wealthy donors and ideologically aligned actors. This isn't to say every pardon lacks merit, but the merit appears secondary to the political message.
In this context, the pardon of James Callahan, a labour union leader convicted of failing to report over $300,000 in gifts, reflects a symbolic outreach to traditionally Democratic constituencies. Trump also pardoned Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, a decision that appealed to libertarian voters—a demographic Trump targeted during his 2024 campaign.
Even the seemingly non-political acts—like commuting the sentence of gang leader Larry Hoover, months after Biden pardoned Hoover's deputy—carry an implicit message: that Trump can be as bold and even more magnanimous than his opponents. In politics, symbolism often outweighs substance and Trump's team appears well aware of this.
Reshaping the role of clemency
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
More than any modern president, Trump has fundamentally altered the perception and function of clemency. Once regarded as an instrument of last resort, granted quietly and with grave consideration, pardons under Trump are now spectacle. They are televised, tweeted and marketed to constituencies.
The elevation of Alice to the role of pardon czar—and her televised involvement in clemency decisions—reinforces the public relations nature of Trump's approach. When the pardon process becomes content for campaign narratives or tools of political signalling, it raises profound questions about the health of the democratic system.
Limits of accountability
Trump's latest round of pardons confirms what has become increasingly clear: political gravity, as traditionally understood, no longer applies to him. Most politicians would fear the optics of pardoning convicted felons, reality TV stars or riot participants. Trump embraces it, spinning each clemency grant into a statement of loyalty, grievance or triumph over what he calls a 'corrupt system'.
If anything, his use of the pardon power has only intensified with time, extending from the mere absolution of crimes to the reinforcement of political identity. Each pardon sends a message—not just to the individual receiving it, but to Trump's base, his enemies and to the institutions he aims to delegitimise.
Whether this strategy remains sustainable beyond his presidency—or whether it permanently redefines the bounds of presidential power—remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that Trump has made the pardon a political weapon — not the first US president to do so but unlike many of his predecessors, he is wielding this power with unmatched boldness and precision, and so far, escaping any serious political penalty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
23 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump has many ways to hurt Elon Musk
THERE WAS a time, not long ago, when an important skill for journalists was translating the code in which powerful people spoke about each other. Carefully prepared speeches and other public remarks would be dissected for hints about the arguments happening in private. Among Donald Trump's many achievements is upending this system. In his administration people seem to say exactly what they think at any given moment. Wild threats are made—to end habeas corpus; to take Greenland by force—without any follow-through. Journalists must now try to guess what is real and what is for show. So it is with the break-up between Mr Trump and Elon Musk, the world's richest man and until last week a 'special government employee". A few months ago Mr Musk posted on X, his social-media platform, that he loved the president 'as much as a straight man can love another man". On May 30th, at a joint press conference in the Oval Office to announce Mr Musk's departure from government, Mr Trump called him 'an incredible patriot" and praised his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (known as DOGE). Yet by June 5th it had all broken down. On his Truth Social media platform the president posted that the billionaire was 'wearing thin" and 'went CRAZY". Mr Trump then threatened to 'terminate" his government contracts. Mr Musk responded on X, claiming that Mr Trump's name appears in the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier who was convicted of trafficking and having sex with underage girls. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public," wrote Mr Musk. Later he agreed with a post saying that Mr Trump should be impeached. He also said he would begin decommissioning his Dragon spacecraft, which transports astronauts to the International Space Station. If carried out, the threats could be disastrous for both men. Mr Trump could lose a valuable donor and the supportive sway of X; Mr Musk's business interests could suffer enormously. But in response to a comment advising him to 'cool off", Mr Musk wrote 'good advice" and backtracked on his call to decommission the Dragon. Where things go from here is anyone's guess. The initial cause of the falling out between Mr Trump and his 'first buddy" was the president's so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill". Mr Musk was incensed that the measure would add enormously to the deficit, and so undermine the work of DOGE. On June 3rd he escalated his criticism, calling the bill a 'disgusting abomination". On June 5th he added another complaint, saying that Mr Trump's tariffs are going to bring about a recession. Mr Trump has his own explanation for Mr Musk's sudden disloyalty. He says the Tesla CEO is unhappy because his bill would cancel a government subsidy for electric cars created by Joe Biden. If Mr Trump does decide to retaliate, the risks to Mr Musk and his businesses are extensive. The threats the president has already made, however, are the least credible. Cancelling the contracts of SpaceX, Mr Musk's space company, would be profoundly disruptive to the government. Without SpaceX rockets, it would struggle to put anything into space, including spy satellites. The Pentagon relies heavily on the firm's Starlink satellites. SpaceX itself could probably weather such moves. Though it has benefited greatly from government contracts, the firm's commercial revenues soared nearly three-fold last year, according to estimates by Quilty Space, a business-intelligence firm. Mr Musk has also wanted to cancel the Dragon spacecraft for some time. Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Mr Trump who is no fan of Mr Musk, has proposed even bigger penalties. He wants the South African-born billionaire to be stripped of his American citizenship—he says Mr Musk is an 'illegal alien"—and his companies nationalised under the Defence Production Act. Such actions also seem unrealistic. Stripping Mr Musk's citizenship would require a judge to rule he committed fraud. The Defence Production Act almost certainly does not permit sudden nationalisation, even if the country is at war. That does not mean Mr Musk can breathe easy, though. His interests are vulnerable to more routine measures. At the time he entered government in January, he and his companies were subject to 65 potential or actual regulatory actions by 11 federal agencies, according to the minority staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, an arm of the Senate. These include accusations that Tesla, Mr Musk's car company, lied about its self-driving technology; that Neuralink, his brain-implant company, violated the Animal Welfare Act with its experiments on monkeys; and that SpaceX repeatedly failed to follow the law when launching rockets. (As head of DOGE, Mr Musk was able to dismantle some of the agencies within the government investigating him, such as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.) One of the reasons why Silicon Valley magnates like Mr Musk rallied around Mr Trump last year was that he promised a more favourable regulatory environment. But 'there was always the risk that what they were buying instead were the conditions of oligarchy", says Donald Moynihan of the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. That is, business leaders who are loyal to the president get to operate as they like, while those who are critical get the full force of the law. Mr Musk may be about to discover what life is like outside the tent. Perhaps on feeling the cold he will find a way back inside. © 2025, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under licence. The original content can be found on
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
Stun Grenades, Armored Trucks in ICE Raids Spur Tensions
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration is intensifying efforts to round up migrants and it's using increasingly aggressive tactics. In scenes from Los Angeles to Massachusetts, agents outfitted with bullet-resistant vests and often displaying military-style rifles are shown in social media videos and photos being escorted along city streets by armored vehicles. A clip from Rhode Island shows an agent standing in a truck's open hatch, manning a rifle. Teams of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents deployed heavily armed and helmeted officers to make arrests Friday around LA. In the downtown Fashion District, according to video posted to X, agents holding riot shields moved through the area on an armored vehicle, while others fired multiple flash-bang grenades as protesters gathered along their path. It's at least the second time in the last week that such tools were deployed to disperse protesters. LA Mayor Karen Bass and other elected officials denounced the raids and the use of force. 'These tactics sow terror in our communities disrupt basic principals of safety in our city,' Bass, a Democrat, said in a statement. The Service Employees International Union said its California president, David Huerta, was injured and arrested during one of the operations. The union said Huerta is a US citizen. ICE didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Nationwide the ICE-led operations, often joined by other federal agents and local law enforcement, have coincided with an increase in arrests of people for running afoul of immigration laws. ICE reported more than 1,600 daily apprehensions, eclipsing 2,200 a day over two days earlier this week. That's more than double the 630 average of recent weeks and a roughly 450% increase over typical numbers during former President Joe Biden's last year in office. The latest figures are still short of the administration's goal, but the White House is moving forward with efforts to remove legal obstacles to deportations while ramping up prison capacity and enforcement capability. In the meantime, it's deploying social-media videos with quick edits and throbbing techno beats, made-for-TV moments to get attention. 'This is not normal,' said David Shirk, a political science professor and expert on US-Mexico border issues at the University of San Diego. 'It is a response to what has been a long-standing problem that is greatly exaggerated and intended to convey a sense of shock and awe.' Critics have long decried the increasing militarization of US police forces, which took off after equipment used in the Iraq war was handed over to state and local forces. In the case of ICE's immigration raids, Shirk and others say the tactics aren't only over the top, they risk further inflaming already tense situations, making it more dangerous for the targets, bystanders and the agents themselves. They say the raids are disproportionate to the threat and seem designed to maximize optics for US President Donald Trump and his supporters, while demonizing migrants who lack legal status but are otherwise law abiding. ICE officials are unapologetic about the shows of force, saying agents must take maximum precautions to protect themselves from dangerous gang members and other criminals. And if the high-profile raids encourage other migrants without documentation to leave, all the better. In social media posts, ICE routinely urges people to avoid arrest by self-deporting. In San Diego last week, an operation targeting workers at the popular Italian restaurant Buona Forchetta included agents dressed in camouflage, helmeted and masked, and some carrying rifles. It drew as many as 250 spontaneous protesters who shouted abuse at the agents. Eventually officials deployed stun grenades to disperse the crowd. The agency declined to specify the exact number of arrests or detail any criminal records of those taken into custody. 'The officers took appropriate action and followed their training to use the minimum amount of force necessary,' Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security department, said in a statement. 'In large part due to protests like this, our ICE officers are facing a 413% increase in assaults while carrying out arrests.' Operations across Massachusetts over the past month resulted in the arrests of nearly 1,500 people for immigration violations, more than half of whom the government said had criminal records in the US or abroad. Heavily armed and masked officers were involved in many of the apprehensions. In raids in Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard last month, about 40 people were arrested and moved out of the area on a Coast Guard patrol boat. In February, agents in Phoenix used an armored vehicle equipped with a battering ram when they arrested a 61-year-old man. At the time, the agency described the arrest as part of a routine operation and said the man had been deported several times and had multiple criminal convictions. 'The more police dress up in military gear and arm themselves with military equipment, the more likely they are to see themselves as at war with people, and that is not what we want,' said Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, deputy project manager for policing at the American Civil Liberties Union. An expanded show of force by policing agencies can 'lead to unnecessary violence that leads to unnecessary harm,' she added. Todd Lyons, the acting head of ICE, this week defended agents' actions, including wearing masks, saying it was for their protection as the public grows increasingly hostile toward their work. 'I am sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, and their family's lives on the line, because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' Lyons said during a press conference. He cited incidents of people identifying agents and then harassing them and their family members online, sometimes posting children's photos and other private information. The agency has made tens of thousands of arrests and deported tens of thousands of foreigners since Trump took office. But top administration aren't happy with the pace. In a tense meeting last month with dozens of top ICE officials Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump and an architect of the the administration's hardline policies, said arrests should average a minimum of 3,000 a day. Many of those senior agents and officers left the meeting worried they would lose their jobs if the quota isn't met, according to a person familiar with the private discussion. The growing frequency of operations — and the gear agents are toting — can be unsettling to community members who aren't accustomed to such broad enforcement operations, according to Jerry Robinette, a former ICE agent who led the agency's Homeland Security Investigations office in San Antonio until he retired in 2012. 'They are in areas where people aren't used to seeing them and some folks are taken aback by what they are seeing, taken aback by the show of force,' said Robinette, adding that it's hard to second guess the show of force in San Diego without more details. 'Without knowing what the underlying crime that they were concerned about, its really hard to say this was an overkill.' Robinette and others said raids involving heavily armed and helmeted agents aren't unheard of in HSI operations. He said a more robust presence is often used in cases involving serious criminal organizations, including drug trafficking networks. In Warwick, Rhode Island, last month, a heavily armed contingent of officers was deployed to arrest a Guatemalan man who had evaded arrest during an April traffic stop. In that incident, according to federal court records, the suspect flailed about and wiggled away from arresting officers, leading one to twist her ankle and ultimately fracture her leg. The suspect was charged with assault, resisting and impeding a law enforcement officer after his May arrest. He is being held in federal custody, court records show. In San Diego, there's been no clarity on who was targeted by the ICE raid at the Italian restaurant. The tactics raised alarms from local officials. 'Militarized immigration raids in our neighborhoods erode trust, destabilize families and undermine the constitutional right to due process,' County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer said in a statement posted to X. City Councilman Sean Elo-Rivera posted a photo of the restaurant raid to Instagram and wrote the word 'terrorists' over the image. Others have described ICE agents as a 'gestapo.' Lyons, in an interview with Fox News, said such descriptions of his officers were 'just plain disgusting.' Elo-Rivera said he stands by his comments, and described the show of force as unnecessary and intended to instill fear. 'It would scare anyone who saw them,' Elo-Rivera said. 'Nobody is safer as a result of the Trump administration attempting to enforce immigration laws.' (Adds details of Los Angeles raids from third paragraph.) More stories like this are available on
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump vs Musk: Caught in the middle are two top US govt advisors, married to each other. What next?
As the feud between US President Donald Trump and his former top advisor, also the world's richest man, Elon Musk ensues, a Trump loyalist couple faces a conundrum like no other. Stephen Miller and his wife Katie Miller are now on the opposite sides of the Donald Trump-Elon Musk break up. How? Because one is the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and the other had until recently been serving as an advisor and a spokeswoman for Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. According to a New York Times report, last week, as Musk was leaving Washington behind, there were news reports that Katie was also leaving DOGE to work for Musk full time, a development that led to speculation about her relationship with the administration – and her husband. By Thursday, speculations intensified after Donald Trump and Elon Musk engaged in an ugly spat with Musk suggesting the president was ungrateful for the $250 million he spent on getting him elected and Trump saying he could cancel the tech billionaire's many government contracts. Musk then reportedly stopped following Stephen Miller, and several other conservative leaders, on X, the social media platform he owns. A day later, Trump said that Musk had "lost his mind" but insisted he wanted to move on from the fiery split with his billionaire former ally. Trump had scrapped the idea of a call with Musk and was even thinking of ditching the red Tesla he bought at the height of their bromance, White House officials told AFP. "You mean the man who has lost his mind?" Trump said in a call with ABC when asked about Musk, adding that he was "not particularly" interested in talking to the tycoon. Trump later told Fox News that Musk had "lost it." Just a week ago Trump gave Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the DOGE after four months working there. Attempts to reach the Millers for comment were unsuccessful, the NYT report added. 'Let's take the richest guy in the world and put him in a room with the most powerful person in the world: Did anybody ever think this was ever going work out?' said James Carville, the veteran Democratic strategist. 'You couldn't be a casual observer of human nature and be remotely surprised by this," the NYT quoted him as saying. Carville was also caught in the middle, just like the Millers are. Back in the 1900s, while working as the chief strategist in the Clinton White House, he made headlines for his relationship with his wife, Mary Matalin, a Republican political consultant who helped manage the 1992 Bush campaign. The couple survived the Clinton administration, and remains married today, the report added. According to the report, Trump has caused a deeper rift between another married couple: Kellyanne Conway, a former campaign manager for the president, and her now ex-husband, George Conway, a conservative lawyer, who announced their divorce in 2023, after years of differing opinions on the president. (She approved, he decidedly did not.) (With inputs from agencies)
