88 percent of Trump's clemencies went to people connected to him
In the waning days of his presidency, Donald Trump exercised one of the Constitution's most unchecked powers — the pardon — in ways that drew a clear line between those who served his interests and those who did not. From Russia investigation figures to Blackwater contractors who killed Iraqi civilians, the recipients shared less a claim to justice than a proximity to power or political utility. The act raised an ancient question about clemency: whether mercy, when wielded by the powerful for the powerful, can still be called mercy at all.
- Trump pardoned Russia probe figures Papadopoulos and van der Zwaan, along with three Republican ex-congressmen convicted of corruption — none through standard DOJ review, all with direct ties to the president.
- Blackwater contractors pardoned for a 2007 massacre of Iraqi civilians and Border Patrol agents forgiven for killing an unarmed undocumented immigrant in 2006, reopening wounds of accountability for state-sanctioned violence.
- Harvard analysis found 88% of Trump's clemency actions benefited people with personal or political connections to him, a concentration of self-interest without modern precedent in the use of pardon power.
- Reform proposals from Senators Klobuchar and Booker call for independent advisory boards to depoliticize clemency, though Biden's specific intentions remained unannounced as the transition continued.
- With weeks remaining in office, observers expected further pardons — the December wave read less as a conclusion than as a preview of how Trump intended to exit the presidency.
On a Tuesday in late December, President Trump issued a broad round of pardons that illuminated his governing philosophy in miniature: clemency as currency, distributed among allies, political benefactors, and ideological constituencies.
The list included George Papadopoulos and Alex van der Zwaan, former aides ensnared by Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, as well as three former Republican congressmen — Chris Collins, Duncan Hunter, and Steve Stockman — each convicted of corruption. None of these cases had passed through the Department of Justice's standard review process. The White House acknowledged the recommendations had come from conservative media figures and members of Congress instead.
The pardons reached further, too. Four Blackwater contractors were forgiven for their roles in a 2007 massacre of Iraqi civilians. Two Border Patrol agents received full pardons for the 2006 killing of an unarmed undocumented immigrant — a case George W. Bush had only partially addressed through commutation. A separate cluster of nonviolent drug offenders was included at the recommendation of Alice Johnson, whose own sentence had been commuted in 2018 following celebrity advocacy.
Harvard professor Jack Goldsmith calculated that 88 percent of Trump's pardons had gone to people with personal or political ties to the president — an unprecedented concentration. Presidential pardon power is constitutionally near-absolute, and past presidents have strained its limits too. But Trump's pattern was notable for how consistently it served his own interests rather than any broader vision of justice.
The December pardons prompted renewed calls for reform. Senators Klobuchar and Booker had each proposed independent clemency boards during their presidential campaigns, designed to center low-level and disproportionately sentenced offenders rather than the politically connected. President-elect Biden signaled openness to such ideas, though specifics remained vague. Trump, with weeks left in office, showed no sign of restraint — more pardons were widely expected before he departed.
On a Tuesday in late December, President Donald Trump issued a sweeping round of pardons and commutations that revealed the contours of his approach to executive clemency: they went overwhelmingly to people with ties to him, his administration, or his political movement.
The list included George Papadopoulos and Alex van der Zwaan, both former Trump aides who had been caught up in Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. It also included three former Republican members of Congress—Chris Collins of New York, Duncan Hunter of California, and Steve Stockman of Texas—each of whom had pleaded guilty to or been convicted of corruption charges. These were not cases of injustice corrected or sentences deemed excessive by independent review. They were cases of political allies receiving relief.
But the pardons extended beyond Trump's immediate circle. Four men who had worked as private military contractors for Blackwater were forgiven for their roles in a 2007 massacre of Iraqi civilians. Two Border Patrol agents received pardons for the 2006 killing of an unarmed undocumented immigrant—a case that George W. Bush, when president, had only commuted rather than fully pardoned. The wave also included nonviolent drug offenders recommended by Alice Johnson, a woman whose own drug conviction had been commuted in 2018 after Kim Kardashian lobbied on her behalf.
What struck observers was not the diversity of cases but the pattern underlying them. Harvard professor Jack Goldsmith calculated that 88 percent of Trump's pardons and commutations had gone to people with personal or political connections to the president. "These continue Trump's unprecedented pattern of issuing self-serving pardons and commutations that advance his personal interests, reward friends, seek retribution against enemies, or gratify political constituencies," Goldsmith told the New York Times. The White House acknowledged that the latest batch had come at the recommendation of conservative media figures and members of Congress—not through the standard review process at the Department of Justice.
Presidential pardon power is nearly absolute. The Constitution grants the president authority to grant reprieves for federal crimes with almost no legal constraint. Past presidents have exploited this. Bill Clinton issued more than 100 pardons on his final day in office, including one to his half-brother and another to Marc Rich, whose ex-wife had donated to Clinton. But Trump's use of the power had been notably concentrated on his own interests and those of his allies.
This pattern has prompted calls for reform. During their 2020 presidential campaigns, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker each proposed establishing independent boards made up of criminal justice stakeholders who would advise the president on clemency decisions, with the goal of reducing sentences for low-level offenders and those whose punishments seemed disproportionate to their crimes. President-elect Joe Biden appeared open to such measures, though his specific plans remained unclear.
Trump showed no interest in constraining his own power. As his presidency entered its final weeks, the December pardons signaled that he would continue using clemency as a tool for rewarding allies rather than advancing broader criminal justice reform. More pardons were expected before he left office.
Citas Notables
These continue Trump's unprecedented pattern of issuing self-serving pardons and commutations that advance his personal interests, reward friends, seek retribution against enemies, or gratify political constituencies.— Jack Goldsmith, Harvard professor
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter that Trump bypassed the Department of Justice review process for these pardons?
Because that process exists to create some distance between personal favor and executive power. When you skip it, you're saying openly that this is about relationships, not principle.
But presidents have always used pardons for allies. Clinton did it. Why is Trump's pattern different?
Scale and concentration. Goldsmith found 88 percent of Trump's clemencies went to people connected to him. That's not a president occasionally helping a friend. That's a system.
The Blackwater contractors and Border Patrol agents—those seem like different cases from the political allies.
They are, but they're also part of the same logic. Trump was signaling to people who act on his behalf—whether contractors or agents—that he'll protect them. That's its own kind of political favor.
What would an independent board actually do differently?
It would ask: Is this sentence unjust? Is this person a low-level offender? Does the punishment fit the crime? Not: Is this person connected to me?
Do you think Biden will actually create one?
He said he was open to it. But once you have that power in your hands, it's hard to give it away. We'll see if he means it.