Trump's Flurry of Pardons Signals a Wholesale Effort to Redefine Crime
President Trump is employing the vast power of his office to redefine criminality — using pardons to inoculate criminals he happens to like, downplaying corruption and fraud as crimes and seeking to stigmatize political opponents by labeling them criminals.
In the past few days, Mr. Trump has offered pardons or clemency to more than two dozen people embraced by his obstreperous right-wing base, or favored by people in his orbit. Most are political allies, some are former officeholders accused of abusing power for personal gain, and almost all were convicted of white-collar crimes like fraud, tax evasion and campaign finance violations — not far removed from accusations Mr. Trump himself has faced.
'No MAGA left behind,' crowed Ed Martin, the pardon attorney at the Justice Department who suggested that the department should investigate Mr. Trump's adversaries to shame them if there was insufficient evidence to charge them.
Mr. Trump has said the current wave of pardons is justified by President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s last-minute reprieves for inmates on federal death row, and pardons he issued to his family — which Mr. Trump called 'disgraceful.' The new pardons are necessary to right the wrongs of a politicized Biden Justice Department that twice indicted him, he has claimed.
Yet, critics say, Mr. Trump has used the pardon powers of the presidency to not only settle accounts, as Mr. Biden did, but to burn the ledger.
'Granting pardons or commuting sentences of public officials or other white-collar criminals convicted of fraud, tax evasion and other breaches of trust is likely to have the effect of normalizing nonviolent crimes,' said Barbara L. McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor who served as a U.S. attorney in the state during the Obama administration.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
Fetterman Calls California Protests ‘Anarchy' as He Criticizes Democrats
Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania warned fellow Democrats that they could face a political backlash if they were seen as failing to sufficiently condemn acts of violence by protesters in Southern California, which local officials have said were limited. On Monday, he posted a photo on social media of a car engulfed in flames and a masked, shirtless person waving a Mexican flag. He suggested that Democrats — many of whom have in fact criticized acts of destruction or violence — should go further in denouncing unruly demonstrations. 'This is anarchy and true chaos,' he wrote. 'My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.' Local officials in California have described the violence as limited, under control and exacerbated by President Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard and deploy troops over the governor's objection. 'I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration — but this is not that,' Mr. Fetterman wrote. 'This is anarchy and true chaos.' Mr. Fetterman, elected in 2022, has become one of the Democrats whom Republicans love to quote as he has broken with some of his party's orthodoxies. He checked himself into a hospital for depression early in his first year in office, and his mental health has recently been the subject of both concern and scrutiny. Democrats on Capitol Hill tried to shrug off his latest comments on Tuesday. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion,' said Representative Yvette D. Clarke of New York, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Some praise appeared to arrive, however, from Elon Musk, the owner of the social media site X, where Mr. Fetterman made his comment. Mr. Musk replied to the post with an American flag emoji.
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Flawed Message to Los Angeles
President Trump thinks he's sending a message. By deploying waves of National Guard officers and active duty Marines to Los Angeles, he's trying to show that he's powerful and in control, that anyone who protests his policies will pay a price. This is a classic deterrence strategy: hit hard in one place to scare Americans into staying home. But this strategy often backfires. If the majority of protests in Los Angeles reject violence, Mr. Trump may end up proving the opposite of what he intended: that he's afraid, that the protesters are disciplined and that the threat isn't the people — it's him. Counterinsurgency experts have long understood this dynamic. If you want to radicalize a population, there is no faster way than to use disproportionate force against civilians. David Kilcullen, a former senior adviser to General David Petraeus in Iraq, made this clear: Heavy-handed state violence doesn't pacify dissent, it inflames it. Another federal authority, the F.B.I., learned this lesson the hard way. In 1992 at Ruby Ridge in Idaho, an F.B.I. sniper shot and killed the wife of Randy Weaver while she stood in the doorway of her home, holding her baby. The F.B.I. had been called in to back up U.S. marshals who were engaged in a standoff with Mr. Weaver, whom they were trying to arrest on a fugitive warrant. A year later in Waco, Texas, federal agents engaged in a 51-day standoff with the Branch Davidians, a religious sect whose leader, David Koresh, was being investigated for alleged child abuse and the unlawful stockpiling of weapons. The siege ended in disaster: The compound went up in flames and more than 75 people, including at least 20 children, died. Public trust in federal law enforcement plummeted. Militias exploded in size and number. Timothy McVeigh later cited Waco as one of the reasons he bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. Since then, the F.B.I. has trod carefully when confronting American civilians, especially armed ones. In 2014, after the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy had long refused to pay federal grazing fees and hundreds of armed supporters faced off with federal agents, law enforcement backed down rather than risk another Waco. And two years after that, during the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon (this time led by Mr. Bundy's sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy), the bureau showed patience. For weeks agents avoided direct confrontation, choosing instead to wait, negotiate and de-escalate. It turns out that this strategy is more effective in avoiding violence. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
Hegseth Defends Deployment of Troops to Los Angeles at Testy Hearing
In response to often sharp questioning from House Democrats on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the Pentagon's deployment of nearly 5,000 active-duty Marines and National Guard members to help the police in Los Angeles quell sporadic unrest. Mr. Hegseth, a former National Guardsman, also suggested in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee that the use of the Guard, part-time citizen soldiers, for homeland defense would expand under President Trump. 'I think we're entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,' Mr. Hegseth told lawmakers. Officials in Los Angeles, as well as other major cities across the country controlled by Democrats, have expressed concern that the military deployments in California could set a precedent and serve as a test run for other urban areas where the administration's aggressive immigration enforcement could prompt large protests. Mr. Hegseth defended the deployment on Monday of 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines, telling lawmakers, 'We ought to be able to enforce immigration law in this country.' The secretary had several testy exchanges with Democrats on the committee, who challenged him on the efficacy and cost of the deployments. At one point, he ignored direct questions from Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the committee's defense panel, about the cost to deploy troops to Los Angeles. Instead, Mr. Hegseth used his time to attack Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles and the Biden administration. A clearly frustrated Ms. McCollum yielded back her time. When he was questioned again on the mission's projected costs, Mr. Hegseth deferred to the Pentagon's acting comptroller, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, who said that Marine and National Guard deployments — estimated to last 60 days — would cost about $134 million, mainly for travel, housing and food. John Ismay contributed reporting.
