Trump's pardons could have erased more than $1.3 billion in fines and restitution, Democrats say
House Democratic lawmakers released a report Tuesday alleging that President Donald Trump's federal pardons and clemency grants could wipe away more than $1.3 billion in payments to victims and the federal government.
Trump's pardons have provoked ire of critics who accuse the president of using the Oval Office to benefit his supporters' political allies. Those critics, including Democratic members of Congress, say the pardons and grants of clemency wipe out payments made to victims or taxpayers.
The report, which House Judiciary Committee Democrats say is based on the cases of nearly 1,600 people, is based on publicly available court documents and the Office of the Pardon Attorney's website.
But it's not clear exactly how much, if any, of the $1.3 billion Democrats say was or could be owed by defendants could be collected before the pardons were issued. And some defendants continue to fight the issue in court.
Generally in court, once restitution and fines have been paid by a defendant, it's not easy for them to claw back that money, even after receiving a presidential pardon.
There have been loopholes, however, that are benefiting some Trump pardon recipients, such as if a defendant was appealing their case at the time of the pardon, or if they were still negotiating financial terms of a settlement, according to court records.
One criminal defendant, electric vehicle startup founder Trevor Milton, skirted having to pay because his restitution amount was being negotiated when he received a pardon from Trump in March, according to court records. Judge Edgardo Ramos had ordered Milton pay restitution, because his victims in an investment scheme had lost hundreds of millions of dollars, his sentencing records say.
Milton's attorneys told the judge overseeing his case that Trump's pardon covered 'financial aspects of the conviction,' and said the court should even reimburse him a $300 fee he paid.
The Democrats' report said the Justice Department didn't provide it with information on how much of $1.3 billion was ever collected.
'The summer interns working for House Democrats must be busy writing and printing pointless letters that aren't worth the paper they're written on,' said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields. 'President Trump is righting the wrongs of political prosecutions and providing justice after careful consideration of thoroughly vetted cases presented to him.'
Some of the criticism of Trump's pardons has focused on defendants charged in relation to the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack, nearly all of whom were pardoned. The report claims that their pardons wiped out a total of at least $3 million in restitution for beating police officers and ransacking the Capitol.
Federal prosecutors said in court this spring that the DOJ does not intend to return already paid restitution and fine costs following a pardon, especially among January 6 defendants. But some newly pardoned criminal defendants have ongoing legal battles that may give them a reprieve on fines and restitution now.
The department has said in court filings, however, that judges' restitution orders and the payments defendants make on them are final, once a conviction has been finalized, and cannot be recouped by a convicted defendant without intervention from Congress or higher courts.
That means many January 6 defendants will not get back the $2,000 or more they already paid as restitution to the US Treasury to compensate for damage to the US Capitol building. It would take an act of Congress to return that money to many of the January 6 defendants, court records from the Justice Department also say.
There is a small number of cases in which January 6 defendants' may be excused from court-ordered restitution and fines.
In the federal court in Washington, DC, where the January 6 defendant's cases were handled, a handful of Capitol rioters pardoned by Trump are asking judges to order that they should get their restitution payments back.
The Justice Department has supported these requests in court if the defendant had a pending appeal, yet the judges largely haven't made decisions. The ultimate decider will be the courts, according to documents in the cases of some January 6 rioters.
In one case, of the January 6 defendant John Earle Sullivan, a federal judge last month blocked him from recouping $62,800 he forfeited to the US government because he had earned it by selling footage of the riot.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
5 minutes ago
- CBS News
Sacramento's Cosumnes River Preserve could be impacted by U.S. sale of federal land for housing
U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Senate is considering selling over 16 million acres of federal land in California to turn into housing, including in Sacramento. The plan is part of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," or budget reconciliation bill, which proposed putting over 250 million acres of public land in western states for sale, including land governed by the Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service. The spot in Sacramento that could be impacted is the Consumnes River Preserve. "We were out there for about three hours this morning and it's a prize. It's really something worth saving," said Josh Schermerhorn, who was enjoying the Consumnes River Preserve with his wife Kathy on Tuesday. Senators who support this bill said selling federal land will generate upward of $10 billion for the government. "The thought of the sale of public lands is pretty un-American," said Katie Hawkins, California program director of the Outdoor Alliance. Hawkins said they are suspicious of the proposal because there are no safeguards in the plan that would prevent pretty much anyone from buying it. "Whether it's extraction, timber sales or if it's development for wealthy developers or even foreign interest," said Hawkins. Her other concern is whether the land is really meant to be built on. Historically, the area has seen flooding with waters spreading across nearby wetlands and rice fields. "I think flooding is natural," said kayaker Kather Schermerhorn. "This is an area that's not hurting anybody and to let it be natural." Mike Lee, a Republican Senator from Utah, has been pushing for the federal land to be sold, but not everyone in his party is on board. "It is so important that the acquisition or disposition of any of these lands be made only after significant and meaningful local input," said Republican California Rep. Kevin Kiley. Kiley openly opposed the idea on the House floor several weeks ago. The House voted against it, but the proposal is still alive on the Senate side. "We have other places where housing could be built and it doesn't have to be on a pristine, precious preserve," said Kathy. A staff member from one of the 10 organizations within the Consumnes River Preserve Partnership told CBS13 that the land is not meant to be built on and thinks solving the housing crisis should not cost Americans losing natural gems. Other California land that could be impacted includes parts of Lake Tahoe, Yosemite and Joshua Tree. Democratic U.S. Senator Alex Padilla sent CBS13 this statement about the proposal: "Make no mistake, this latest Republican proposal is riddled with anti-environment provisions meant to create the largest public land sell off in recent memory to subsidize their tax cuts for billionaires. If Republicans have their way, we will never get our public lands back once they are privatized. Our public lands and natural spaces are some of our nation's greatest gifts and I will do everything I can do to protect them." The Senate has until July 4 to decide on this bill.
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Are Lindsey Graham's contortions about to prod Trump into Russia sanctions?
Has Lindsey Graham been playing the long game with Donald Trump? Graham, who has calibrated his pro-Ukraine support since the inauguration to stay in the US president's orbit, has said he expects this week that the Senate will begin moving his Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bill that he says would impose 'bone-breaking sanctions' on Vladimir Putin and a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that buy Russian oil and other goods, potentially targeting China and India. The fate of the bill still depends on whether Trump gives the go-ahead, according to congressional insiders. But Trump's growing frustration with Putin has emboldened some in the GOP to begin speaking out on the conflict again – with the notoriously flexible Graham leading the charge for tougher sanctions on the Kremlin. Is it nearing a critical mass moment in Congress – a body that has largely abdicated its role in foreign policy since Trump's inauguration? 'I hope so, because it is the right action to take,' said Don Bacon, a Republican House representative who has criticised the White House on its Ukraine policy. 'But it is risky to speak for others. I know where I stand. The Senate has an overwhelming majority in support of sanctions and we should move out. It is in our national security interests that Russia fails here and it should be obvious that Putin doesn't want peace, but wants dominance over Ukraine.' Trump's shift on Russia has come as his efforts to negotiate a speedy ceasefire have failed. Talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul on Monday led to little progress, and continued outreach from his personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, to the Kremlin has not brought concessions from Vladimir Putin. A leaked draft of Russia's demands at the negotiations depicted a capitulation: withdrawal from Ukrainian territory claimed by Russia, no Nato membership for Ukraine, caps on the size of the country's military. Yet it has specifically been the bombardment of cities that has upset Trump, proving once again that Putin has managed to be his own worst enemy when it comes to negotiations. 'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him,' Trump said last week, repeating part of the comments in public. 'He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I'm not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.' As the White House looks for means to increase pressure on Russia and its enablers like China, the bill backed by Graham and the Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal has become a convenient tool to do just that. One person in GOP circles said that the White House was considering letting Republicans 'vote their conscience' – in effect allowing Congress to support the bill without facing blowback from the Trump administration. But that would involve a final decision by the White House, and Trump has still not openly backed new sanctions as more than just a contingency. 'Despite support of 82 or so senators, the bill can't move without support in the House, and the speaker of the House won't move it without the president's support,' said Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute. 'And it's not clear the president has really decided Putin's the impediment to a ceasefire. Additionally, the Senate will be consumed with passing the reconciliation bill for the next few weeks.' But as of Tuesday, the leadership appeared ready to move forward. The weather vane for Trump's gusty foreign policy on Ukraine has been Graham, a veteran political survivor who has built a strong relationship with the president through relentless flattery and has tailored his views to match Trump's when convenient. On Ukraine, he has been so bendable that he could not be broken. 'They play a very careful game because they don't want to upset their relationship with the big guy,' said one person knowledgable about discussions among congressional Republicans. 'At the same time, I do think his heart and his head is in the right place. Just really not quite his own courage.' Graham's interventions have been meaningful. He was instrumental in pushing the minerals deal that Ukraine signed with the US as a way to get Trump's buy-in for its defense. Over a game of golf, he pitched Trump on the 'trillions' in mineral wealth in Ukraine and later showed him a map (Trump said he wanted 'half' according to one account). At the same time, he publicly fumed about Volodymyr Zelenskyy following the disastrous White House meeting of late February when Trump and JD Vance argued with the wartime leader. 'I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelenskyy again,' Graham said, also suggesting that the Ukrainian leader should resign. (Zelenskyy shot back later that he was ready to offer him citizenship if he wanted to discuss who should lead Ukraine). Graham's latitude has stunned some of his former colleagues. A former colleague who had worked with Graham on Ukraine policy said that his remarks about Zelenskyy had given him 'whiplash'. Asked if Graham had a coherent strategy to influence Trump, the person said: 'Graham's strategy is to put Graham first.' 'I think that he understands the big game,' said another person familiar with discussions over the bill. 'He would like the policy to be sound, which means [putting sanctions] on the Kremlin. But he values his relationship with the president and that that trumps the first calculation. So if he really feels the president's against, he's not going to go for it.' Now, with Trump signaling greater readiness for sanctions, Graham has traveled to Kyiv to meet with Zelenskyy (all smiles) and to Brussels, where he and the EU president, Ursula von der Leyen, discussed potential EU and US sanctions packages to turn up the pressure on Moscow. 'Senator Graham deserves a lot of credit for making the case for tougher pressure on the Kremlin,' said John Hardie, the Russia program deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative thinktank. 'Carrots clearly haven't worked, so it's time to start using some sticks, including by going after Russia's oil revenue. This economic pressure should be paired with sustained military assistance for Ukraine.' Hardie and others noted that Trump could increase pressure on Russia without the Senate bill. 'If President Trump were to decide to go the pressure route, he already has the tools at his disposal to do so,' said Hardie. 'For example, he could immediately designate the rest of Russia's shadow fleet and other non-western entities facilitating Russian oil exports and could join with G7 partners in lowering the G7 oil price cap.' And even if the sanctions are passed, they will ultimately rely on Trump's decision to enforce them. 'The Senate is prepared either way,' Graham wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week. 'I have coordinated with the White House on the Russia sanctions bill since its inception. The bill would put Russia on a trade island, slapping 500% tariffs on any country that buys Moscow's energy products. The consequences of its barbaric invasion must be made real to those that prop it up. If China or India stopped buying cheap oil, Mr Putin's war machine would grind to a halt.'
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Democrat says his name was included in Minnesota shooting suspect's notes
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said Monday that his name was one of at least 45 listed in evidence linked to the man accused of shooting two Minnesota Democratic lawmakers over the weekend. Landsman said he was informed by Capitol Police on Sunday morning, at which point the suspect, Vance Boelter, was still at large. Landsman said he worked with the Cincinnati Police Department to arrange additional security for himself and his family. Boelter was arrested on Sunday night after a two-day manhunt. He appeared in federal court earlier today on charges of stalking, murder and shooting. He is accused of killing Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman (D) and her husband, Mark Hortman, as well as shooting state Sen. John Hoffman (D) and his wife Yvette Hoffman. Authorities said that Boelter planned his attacks carefully, conducting surveillance on his victims' homes and buying police-like equipment days in advance. Notebooks recovered from his home and car included the names of at least 45 state and federal officials, most of them Democrats. Landsman is one of at least a half-dozen Democratic members of Congress on Boelter's alleged list, which included Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.), Angie Craig (D-Minn.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.), local news reported. Scholten postponed a town hall in response to the news out of an 'abundance of caution.' Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison were also listed. Officials said on Monday that Boelter had visited the homes of two other Minnesota state lawmakers the night that he killed the Hortmans and shot the Hoffmans. They declined to release the names of the other two representatives. 'I'm extremely thankful to the Cincinnati Police Department for their quick assistance and to Capitol Police for their guidance,' Landsman said in a statement. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.