Pardons

The presidential pardon power was designed as a constitutional safety valve — a tool for mercy, justice, and second chances. It has also been used to pursue domestic tranquility, as after the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. But the Framers never intended it to be absolute. The pardon power, like all others, must be understood within the structure of the Constitution as a whole — subject to checks and balances, and exercised in the public interest.

In recent decades, presidents of both parties have strained those limits. It’s in this period that presidents have begun wielding the pardon power for obvious personal reasons rather than in service of the public good. The presidential pardon power has been twisted into a tool for self-dealing — used to protect political allies, obstruct investigations, and reward loyalty. Four categories of pardons violate core constitutional provisions: self-pardons; self-protective pardons that impede investigations into a president or his interests; pardons that subvert individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights; and pardons that function as bribes or to obstruct justice.

A bipartisan problem requiring bipartisan solutions

Pardon abuse has not been confined to one party. Rather than taking each former president’s controversial pardons as a reason to engage in future abuse, the pardon power should be subject to reasonable and constitutional constraints in order to prevent its use for self-dealing. Cross-partisan consensus on reform is both possible and necessary.

Strengthening oversight

Congress should employ its extensive oversight tools to investigate potentially unlawful pardons, and pass legislation that aids specifically in its oversight of pardon abuse, such as codifying information disclosure requirements to ensure lawmakers have access to relevant materials.

Building public awareness

Polling shows that 75% of Americans — including 55% of Republicans — opposed pardons for those convicted of violent offenses in relation to the January 6 insurrection, suggesting that aversion to pardon abuse can cut across partisan lines. Translating that sentiment into durable reform requires sustained public education about the pardon power’s constitutional limits.

Explore this work