Trump was convicted of 34 criminal counts a year ago. Can he pardon himself?
In the days leading up to the anniversary of his own criminal conviction, President Donald Trump issued a flurry of clemency acts.
On May 30, 2024, a New York jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, the first time a former president had ever been convicted of a crime. Prosecutors argued Trump disguised reimbursements for a $130,000 hush money payment for porn star Stormy Daniels as legal expenses ahead of the 2016 election.
In January, Judge Juan Merchan issued an "unconditional discharge' sentence for Trump's conviction, meaning he received no prison time or probation. The other cases in which he was also indicted are not moving forward while he is in office.
But back in the White House, Trump has used the presidential power of clemency to ease consequences for people convicted of tax evasion, murder and bribery, to name a few. But can Trump use his clemency power on himself?
Trump pardons: Todd and Julie Chrisley, health care tax cheat, Jan. 6 rioters
A president issuing a self-pardon would be unprecedented, so its legality is unclear.
If he did try it, it would not apply to the hush money case. Presidential pardons only apply to federal cases, not state cases.
The Constitution states the president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." That text limits the pardoning power by excluding state criminal offenses and civil claims, according to the Constitution Annotated.
More: Trump's latest wave of pardons includes rapper, GOP governor convicted of corruption
Trump was convicted in a New York state case.
The federal cases he was charged in, led by special counsel Jack Smith, were dismissed after Trump was elected to serve a second term. It is a longstanding policy at the Justice Department to prosecute a sitting president.
In addition to those convicted in the Jan. 6 riots, Trump has granted clemency, including pardons and sentence commutations, to more than 45 people as of May 29. In his first term, he granted 238 clemency acts, according to Pew Research Center, which also found former President Joe Biden had granted more clemency acts than any other president on record with 4,245 acts.
Some recent Trump pardons and sentence commutations that made headlines include:
Paul Walczak, the son of a wealthy Republican donor who was convicted of tax evasion for siphoning more than $10.9 million in payroll taxes from the paychecks of doctors and nurses. He had been sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Michele Fiore, a former Las Vegas City Councilwoman who was convicted of federal charity fraud after misusing donations for a planned police memorial. She had not been sentenced when she was pardoned.
Scott Jenkins, a former Virginia sheriff convicted of bribery in what prosecutors called a "cash-for-badges scheme.' He was set to start a 10-year prison sentence on May 27, 2025.
Todd and Julie Chrisley, reality TV stars convicted of conspiring to defraud community banks, defraud the IRS and commit tax evasion in 2022. Todd Chrisley had been sentenced to 12 years in prison and Julie had been sentenced to seven years in prison.
Larry Hoover, a Chicago gang leader serving multiple life sentences for charges including murder, extortion and money laundering, had his federal sentence commuted. Hoover attracted celebrity attention in calls to be freed, including from rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West. Hoover will remain behind bars to continue serving for state charges.
Contributing: Jeffrey Meehan, Reno Gazette Journal; Hannah Phillips, Palm Beach Post; Bart Jansen, KiMi Robinson, Jay Stahl, Aysha Bagchi, Kathryn Palmer, USA TODAY; C.A. Bridges, USA TODAY Network
Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@gannett.com. Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @kinseycrowley.bsky.social.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Can Trump pardon himself? What to know on conviction anniversary
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
For these Trump voters, a rubber-stamp Congress is a key demand
Advertisement And they reserved their purest aversion for Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the solidly conservative former longtime party leader, whom they described alternately as an 'obstructionist' to Trump's agenda, a 'snake in the grass,' and a 'bowl of Jell-O' with no spine. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Their perspectives offered a striking contrast to the reception that many Republican lawmakers have confronted at raucous town halls throughout the country in recent months. The lawmakers have been grilled and booed by constituents at these events for supporting Trump's policies on tariffs, immigration and, most recently, the domestic policy bill that the GOP pushed through the House in May. And they help explain why most Republican lawmakers have put aside any reservations they may have on key issues and backed the president -- because a critical portion of their party's base is still demanding that they do so. Advertisement 'For loyal Trump voters, they're loving what they see as him 'doing something' and don't want congressional Republicans getting in the way of his agenda,' said Sarah Longwell, the anti-Trump Republican strategist who conducted the focus groups. 'And members of Congress have gotten that message loud and clear.' These voters represent only a piece of the electorate that Republicans must court in the run-up to midterm congressional elections in which their governing trifecta is on the line. Since Trump took office, GOP lawmakers have struggled to defend his executive actions and his efforts to dismantle the federal bureaucracy and unilaterally defund government programs, and to explain to their constituents why they are not doing more to challenge him. In Nebraska this past week, Representative Mike Flood faced an angry crowd grilling him on the Medicaid and food assistance cuts included in the domestic policy bill. And he admitted he had been unaware that the measure included a provision to limit the power of federal judges to hold people, including Trump administration officials, in contempt for disobeying court orders. But Longwell's sessions, videos of which were shared with The New York Times, were a reminder that there is still a powerful pull for Republicans to swallow whatever disagreements they may have with Trump and bow to what he wants. Since the beginning of this Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson, whose too-slim majority in the House leaves him little latitude to maneuver, has positioned himself less as the leader of the legislative branch and more as a junior partner to Trump. That stance is exactly what these voters, whom Longwell identified only by their first names and last initials to protect their privacy, said they liked about him. Advertisement Arthur M., a voter from Arizona, described Johnson as 'loyal,' adding, 'I'm not saying they should never have any other ideas of their own, but they certainly shouldn't have someone dissenting if you're trying to put an agenda through -- and that's what the Congress is.' Jeff B., a voter from Georgia, said Johnson always appeared to be 'in over his head.' But he did not see that as a negative. 'He's not the kind of guy like Mitch McConnell, who was pulling all the strings,' he said. 'He's struggling, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be. He looks like he's in over his head, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be.' The voters who participated in the focus groups, which were conducted May 16 and 19, had uniformly negative views of those House Republicans they viewed as 'rabble-rousers,' which they defined as anyone expressing an opinion that was not in sync with the White House. Jane H., a voter from Indiana, criticized her Congress member, Representative Victoria Spartz, an unpredictable lawmaker who often sides with the hard right, for being 'out of line' when she makes noises about opposing Trump's agenda. Gilbert W. from North Carolina held a similar view of Murkowski, who has routinely broken with her party to criticize Trump. 'Murkowski -- this woman's never found anything on the Republican side she really goes for,' he said, calling her a 'troublemaker.' In contrast, Allen K. from Arizona praised his Congress member, Representative Juan Ciscomani, for never making any waves. Advertisement 'Whatever Trump does, he'll say,' he said of Ciscomani, describing that as a positive. As for Senator John Thune, the new majority leader from South Dakota, he earned kudos mostly for not being McConnell. 'He's pressing Trump's agenda, it seems like,' Gilbert W. said. 'What else can you ask for?' Jane H., a three-time Trump voter, said, 'What I want to see is someone who will work hard and effectively to advance a conservative agenda, and to work closely with the White House to advance at this time Donald Trump's agenda. It's what the American people want, so that's what John Thune should be doing.' Many of the participants in the focus groups had only vague impressions of their own representatives, a reminder that to many voters, Congress remains a faceless institution of 535 mostly anonymous lawmakers about whom they don't have particularly strong feelings. That could help explain why most appeared to judge their elected officials almost exclusively according to how deferential they were to Trump, about whom they expressed potent -- and extremely positive -- sentiments. Asked for his opinions on Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Steve C., a voter from Michigan, said, 'I don't have an opinion on anyone specifically.' This article originally appeared in
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump to meet with Germany's Merz in Washington next week
President Trump is set to meet with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz next week in Washington, marking the first in-person meeting between the two leaders. Merz, the leader of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who was elected as Germany's leader in early March, is expected to visit Trump at the White House on Thursday, June 5, Germany government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius said Saturday in a press release. The discussions between the two countries' leaders will focus on bilateral relations between the two, along with discussions around the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, developments in the Middle East and trade policy, according to Kornelius. A White House official confirmed the meeting details to The Hill on Saturday. Merz, similar to Trump, has been pushing for a ceasefire deal in the more than three-year-long war between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had a meeting with Merz on Wednesday in Berlin. There, Merz said that Germany will bolster its backing of Ukraine as part of a more than $5.5 billion agreement, including sending over more military equipment and increasing weapons manufacturing in Kyiv. Germany's chancellor has clashed with members of Trump's administration over the country's government marking the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party as an 'extremist' political entity. 'Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition. That's not democracy—it's tyranny in disguise,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote earlier this month on social media platform X. 'What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD—which took second in the recent election — but rather the establishment's deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes.' Vice President Vance piled on, accusing the government of trying to 'destroy' AfD, which also considers tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk a strong supporter. Merz has pushed back on Trump administration's officials meddling in Germany's domestic politics. 'We have largely stayed out of the American election campaign in recent years, and that includes me personally,' Merz said in an interview with Axel Springer Global Reporters Network that was published on May 7. He added that he told U.S. officials that 'we have not taken sides with either candidate. And I ask you to accept that in return.'
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Tariffs Face Threat at Supreme Court — Over Rulings That Blocked Biden
(Bloomberg) -- A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Where the Wild Children's Museums Are During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. Presidential Exception The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. Ideological Split So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' --With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? AI Is Helping Executives Tackle the Dreaded Post-Vacation Inbox ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
