Lead
Since returning to the White House in January 2025, President Donald Trump has issued an unprecedented run of pardons and commutations aimed at political allies, donors and business partners. The moves — including a one-day grant affecting about 1,500 people tied to the January 6 attack, a commutation of expelled Rep. George Santos’s seven-year sentence in October 2025, and a pardon for Binance founder Changpeng Zhao — have drawn sharp criticism from former prosecutors, legal scholars and members of Congress. Critics say the pattern suggests conflicts of interest, pay-to-play dynamics and a partisan use of clemency that threatens norms governing the Justice Department. Supporters contend clemency is within presidential authority; opponents warn the pattern undermines public trust and the rule of law.
Key takeaways
- On his first day back in office in January 2025, Trump pardoned or commuted sentences for roughly 1,500 people connected to the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
- In October 2025 Trump commuted the seven-year sentence of George Santos, who pleaded guilty in 2024 to 13 counts including fraud and identity theft; Santos had served only a few months.
- Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao, who pleaded guilty in 2023 and served a four-month term for anti–money-laundering violations; Binance in 2023 settled related DOJ charges for more than $4 billion.
- Binance earlier in 2025 agreed to a reported $2 billion investment deal tied to the Trump family crypto firm World Liberty Financial, a tie critics point to when questioning the Zhao pardon.
- In May 2025 Trump installed Ed Martin as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney after removing a career official who resisted clemency for a Trump ally; critics say Martin has openly prioritized MAGA supporters.
- Former pardon attorney Liz Oyer says roughly 15,000 clemency petitions are pending and that Martin’s office appears focused on politically connected recipients rather than ordinary applicants.
- A June 2025 judiciary committee report estimated that some pardons enabled criminals to retain or avoid returning about $1.3 billion to victims and fines.
Background
The U.S. presidential clemency power has long been a controversial executive tool: a constitutional safety valve designed to temper excessive punishment or correct miscarriages of justice. Traditionally, career Justice Department pardon attorneys evaluated applications against the Justice Manual’s merit-based standards and advised presidents on clemency decisions. Over recent decades, presidents of both parties have faced scrutiny for particular pardons, but critics say the institution-level norms have generally limited blatant patronage.
That institutional framework began to fray after the 2024 election cycle and accelerated when Trump returned to office in January 2025. Political allies who played roles in the post-2020 election challenges — and some wealthy figures tied to the president’s business interests — increasingly became recipients of clemency. At the same time, Trump replaced career officials who resisted partisan-influenced pardons with loyalists, raising alarms among watchdogs about conflicts of interest and the erosion of merit-based review.
Main event
On his first day back in the White House in January 2025, the president issued mass clemency that touched roughly 1,500 individuals connected to the January 6, 2021 attack and efforts to block certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. The move immediately provoked outrage from victims’ advocates, some lawmakers and legal experts who argued it signaled a political reward system for those who aided Trump’s aims.
In May 2025 Trump named Ed Martin as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney after withdrawing his nomination for U.S. attorney for D.C. and dismissing Liz Oyer, the career pardon official who had resisted clemency for certain allies. Martin’s public statements favoring MAGA supporters and his prior legal work for January 6 defendants intensified scrutiny of his role and raised concerns about partisan prioritization within the clemency process.
October 2025 brought two highly scrutinized decisions: the commutation of George Santos’s seven-year sentence after Santos had pleaded guilty in 2024 to 13 counts, and the full pardon of Changpeng Zhao, the Binance founder who pleaded guilty in 2023 to anti–money-laundering offenses and served four months in custody. Critics highlighted that Binance had settled with the Justice Department for more than $4 billion in 2023 and had pursued a $2 billion investment tied to a Trump family crypto firm earlier in 2025.
Martin’s office also announced pre-emptive pardons for more than 70 named MAGA allies, including Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows, many of whom face state-level investigations that presidential clemency would not touch. The pattern of decisions and the appointment of a political loyalist to the pardon attorney role have prompted multiple congressional inquiries and public statements from former DOJ officials condemning the clemency strategy as politicized.
Analysis & implications
Legal scholars and ex-prosecutors warn that deploying pardons to benefit political allies and linked business interests risks normalizing corruption-like exchanges. Where clemency is conferred on individuals with ties to a president’s business network or fundraiser cohort, public confidence in the impartiality of law enforcement and in the separation between public office and private gain is eroded. The Zhao pardon, given the reported $2 billion business connection to the Trump family, is frequently cited as an emblematic case.
Beyond optics, there are financial consequences. The judiciary report’s estimate that pardons have allowed some defendants to keep roughly $1.3 billion that otherwise might have been returned to victims or taken as fines illustrates how clemency can reshape who bears the cost of criminal wrongdoing. For victims and restitution claimants, pardons that extinguish criminal liability can foreclose civil remedies or practical recovery paths, even if state prosecutions proceed.
The institutional risk to the Justice Department is also material. Replacing merit-based review with a loyalty-first approach to clemency and installing a politically aligned pardon attorney can turn an independent advisory process into an instrument of partisan advantage. That may chill prosecutors who fear politicized outcomes and reduce cooperation with DOJ career staff, weakening long-standing norms that separate investigations and prosecutions from partisan calculations.
In geopolitical and regulatory terms, the pardons could influence policy trajectories: a whitewashed or forgiven financier who publicly pledges to “make America the Capital of Crypto” and who benefited from executive clemency may lobby for deregulatory changes, shaping markets and enforcement priorities. Such shifts would have domestic economic effects and international message implications about U.S. regulatory rigor.
Comparison & data
| Subject | Charge/Sentence | Action | Key context |
|---|---|---|---|
| ~1,500 Jan 6 defendants | Various; convictions related to Jan 6, 2021 | Pardoned/commuted (Jan 2025) | Mass clemency on president’s first day back |
| George Santos | Plead 2024 to 13 counts; 7-year sentence | Commuted (Oct 2025) | Served only months before commutation |
| Changpeng Zhao (Binance) | Plead 2023; 4-month sentence | Pardoned (2025) | Binance settled DOJ charges for >$4bn (2023); $2bn deal tied to Trump family firm (2025) |
The table isolates a few headline cases that exemplify the broader pattern: high-volume clemency for political protesters, selective commutations for indicted politicians, and pardons for business figures with direct or indirect ties to the president’s family enterprises. Taken together, these data points show both political and economic vectors to the administration’s clemency choices.
Reactions & quotes
Former Watergate special prosecutor counsel Philip Lacovara criticized the clemency pattern as corrosive to DOJ norms and puzzled by the Santos commutation.
The commutation of Santos after only a few months, when he showed no remorse and received a sentence within federal guidelines, is bewildering.
Philip Lacovara (former counsel to Watergate special prosecutor)
Former DOJ inspector general Michael Bromwich framed the new practice as a transactional replacement for mercy.
The pardon process has been replaced by a pay-to-play system — a thinly disguised form of bribery — where connections and money trump remorse or merit.
Michael Bromwich (former DOJ inspector general)
Columbia law professor David Pozen warned of longer-term institutional damage.
Using pardons for blatantly self-serving ends is a classic authoritarian tactic that undermines the rule of law and risks long-term erosion of public support for clemency.
David Pozen (Columbia Law)
Unconfirmed
- Whether direct financial transfers or explicit quid-pro-quo agreements occurred between pardoned individuals and the president’s business network remains unproven and lacking public evidence.
- Claims that specific recommendations for pardons originated solely from Trump family advisors tied to the World Liberty Financial deal have not been independently verified.
- Ed Martin’s assertion of systematic Biden administration abuses of clemency (including alleged misuse of autopen) is under investigation but has not been substantiated by conclusive findings.
Bottom line
The recent clemency pattern under President Trump departs from the historically merit-focused posture of the pardon office by favoring political allies, wealthy donors and business partners — a shift that has concrete legal, financial and institutional consequences. The most immediate effects include frustration for victims seeking restitution, potential hamstringing of state prosecutions that are unaffected by federal pardons, and damage to public faith in equal application of the law.
Longer term, scholars and former officials warn that normalizing loyalty-based clemency risks hollowing out an independent Justice Department and weakening international and domestic perceptions of U.S. rule-of-law standards. Congressional oversight, ongoing investigations and potential public reaction will determine whether policy or legal remedies emerge to restore a merit-based clemency process.
Sources
- The Guardian (media — original reporting)