A signature from the President of the United States can erase a conviction, cut short a prison term, or restore lost rights. It is one of the most sweeping powers in American public life, and one of the least restrained. In his second term, President Donald Trump has used that authority on an extraordinary scale. More than 1,840 acts of clemency have been issued, benefiting cryptocurrency tycoons, former office holders, reality television personalities, and hundreds of political allies. Experts say the pattern marks a sharp break from long-standing practice and has turned mercy into a tool of loyalty and leverage.
A power rooted in the Constitution
The presidential pardon traces back to the debates of America’s founding era. In the Constitution, influenced by arguments from figures such as Alexander Hamilton, the president was granted the authority to offer clemency for federal offences.
There are two main forms. A pardon forgives the crime and restores civil rights. A commutation reduces a sentence but leaves the conviction intact.
The power is broad. It cannot be used in cases of impeachment, and it applies only to federal crimes, not state convictions. Beyond that, presidents have wide discretion and little obligation to explain themselves.
How the system once worked
For nearly a century, the process followed a settled path. Applications were reviewed by the Office of the Pardon Attorney within the Department of Justice. Background checks were often carried out by the FBI. Recommendations were then passed to the White House, where the president made the final decision.
Margaret Love, who served as US pardon attorney under Presidents George HW Bush and Bill Clinton, has said the system was once steady and understated. It was not free from politics, but it had structure and professional review.
According to Love, the strain began during the presidency of Bill Clinton. As a Democrat wary of appearing soft on crime, Clinton granted relatively few pardons for much of his time in office. Then, on his final day in January 2001, he issued 177 acts of clemency in one sweep.
Among them was financier Marc Rich, who had fled the country amid tax evasion and racketeering charges. Donations linked to Rich’s former wife to Democratic causes triggered a storm of criticism and allegations of favour-trading. The episode damaged trust in the system and fuelled claims that politics had overtaken principle.
Trump’s centralised approach
Under Donald Trump, critics argue, the traditional safeguards have weakened further.
The White House has indicated that a team of lawyers reviews applications before they reach the president. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt has stressed that Trump is the “ultimate decision-maker” and that many pardons are intended to correct what he sees as abuses under President Joe Biden.
Inside the West Wing, senior figures such as chief of staff Susie Wiles and White House counsel David Warrington have reportedly overseen requests. In early 2025, Trump appointed Alice Marie Johnson, whose life sentence he had commuted during his first term, as a clemency adviser.
At the same time, upheaval within the Justice Department has raised questions. In March, US Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer said she was dismissed after refusing a request linked to restoring actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights. Her replacement, Ed Martin, has been described by critics as overtly political. After Trump pardoned a Virginia sheriff, Martin posted publicly: “No MAGA left behind.”
The impression, legal scholars say, is that the Department of Justice now plays a reduced or uncertain role, while 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 convicted over the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol.
Others have been prominent business figures. In October, Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao, founder of the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, over money laundering violations. Around the same period, Binance promoted a stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency venture partly owned by the Trump family. The company denied wrongdoing, but critics pointed to the overlap.
More recently, a banker received clemency after his daughter made substantial donations to a pro-Trump political action committee. Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters described the decision as a “pay-to-play” arrangement.
The scale and nature of the pardons, observers argue, risk sidelining ordinary applicants, those without wealth, connections or political value.
Foreign policy and mixed messages
At times, the choices have appeared to clash with Trump’s own rhetoric.
In November, he pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras who had been convicted in the United States of drug trafficking. The decision sat uneasily alongside Trump’s hard line on narcotics and cross-border crime. It also coincided with an election in Honduras, where Trump had expressed support for Hernández’s political allies.
Trump has even urged Israel’s president to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over corruption charges, drawing attention abroad to the sweeping nature of American executive power.
Experts warn that such actions may weaken Washington’s moral authority when pressing other countries to uphold judicial independence and democratic standards.
Testing the limits
Despite its breadth, the pardon power is not limitless.
In December, Trump announced he would pardon Tina Peters, a former Colorado county clerk convicted over election interference offences linked to false claims of voter fraud in 2020. However, her crimes were prosecuted at the state level. A president cannot overturn state convictions. Peters remains in prison, though Trump has publicly urged Colorado officials to release her.
Constitutional scholars also note that pardons cannot cover future crimes, override impeachment, or nullify other constitutional safeguards. During his first term, Trump asserted he had the “absolute right” to pardon himself, a claim that has never been tested in court.
The unresolved question is how far a determined president might push the boundaries, and who would stop him.
Calls for reform
The controversy has revived debate over reform. 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. Proceedings are open, and decisions are explained.
Supporters of change argue that transparency and shared decision-making could restore trust. Others go further, suggesting constitutional limits on the power itself.
For now, however, the authority remains firmly in presidential hands. With more than 1,840 grants of clemency in little over a year, Donald Trump has shown how expansive and how political that power can become.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: ZEE News
