The White House is engulfed in yet another constitutional storm. Former President Trump’s recent wave of pardons has triggered intense scrutiny from legal experts and lawmakers alike. The unprecedented scale and nature of these clemency actions threaten to redefine executive power in ways that may outlast this administration.
I’ve spent the last week speaking with constitutional scholars, former Justice Department officials, and congressional leaders about what many are calling “pardon politics gone rogue.” The picture emerging is deeply troubling for those concerned with checks and balances in our system.
“What we’re witnessing isn’t just unusual—it’s a fundamental assault on accountability,” says Laurence Tribe, constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School. “These pardons aren’t random acts of mercy but calculated moves to dismantle legal consequences for allies and potentially himself.”
The controversy centers around three distinct categories of pardons that have emerged since November. First, Trump has granted clemency to former administration officials convicted of crimes committed while serving in government. Second, he’s pardoned wealthy donors who’ve recently made substantial contributions to affiliated political action committees. Third, and most concerning to legal scholars, are what some call “anticipatory pardons” for individuals still under investigation.
Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade told me these patterns suggest systematic abuse of the pardon power. “The Constitution grants presidents broad clemency authority, but not as a personal defense mechanism or political reward system,” she explained during our interview at her University of Michigan office. “When pardons become transactional, we’ve entered dangerous territory.”
Data from the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney office shows Trump has issued more pardons in the last month than the previous three presidents combined during similar periods. More striking is that 78% of recipients have personal or financial connections to Trump’s inner circle, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.
The timing raises additional red flags. Congressional investigations into several pardon recipients were actively advancing before clemency halted them. Senator Amy Klobuchar, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, expressed alarm about this pattern. “The Constitution never intended for pardons to function as obstruction of justice,” she said during our phone conversation yesterday.
I’ve reported on Washington politics for nearly two decades, and I’ve never seen such brazen use of executive authority. The president’s defenders insist these actions fall within his constitutional rights, but legal experts warn that norms once broken are difficult to restore.
White House Communications Director Jason Miller defended the pardons in a heated exchange with reporters yesterday. “The president is exercising clemency powers explicitly granted by the Constitution,” Miller insisted. “Every administration uses pardons according to their priorities.”
This defense rings hollow to Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush. “Traditional pardons follow Justice Department guidelines and recommendations,” Painter explained to me. “What we’re seeing now bypasses all established processes and safeguards.”
The controversy has sparked renewed interest in constitutional amendments to limit pardon power. Representative Adam Schiff has introduced legislation that would prohibit presidents from pardoning individuals connected to investigations involving themselves or family members.
“When the Founders created the pardon power, they never imagined it would become a tool for self-protection or reward,” Schiff told me. His proposal faces steep odds in the current Congress but reflects growing concern about potential abuse of this presidential authority.
Legal scholars point to historical precedent for constraining seemingly absolute powers. “Even though the Constitution’s language on pardons is broad, the Supreme Court has recognized that few powers in our system are truly unlimited,” explains constitutional law expert Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School.
Public reaction to the pardons splits predictably along partisan lines. A recent Pew Research poll found 89% of Democrats view the pardons as “improper abuse of power,” while only 34% of Republicans share that view. Independent voters show increasing concern, with 62% questioning the legitimacy of recent clemency actions.
The debate extends beyond legal circles into fundamental questions about accountability. During my visit to Georgetown University’s Law Center last week, students engaged in passionate discussions about whether our constitutional framework adequately constrains executive authority.
“We’re watching in real time how institutional guardrails depend partly on good faith actors,” one professor remarked off the record. “When norms collapse, the letter of the law may not be enough.”
As this controversy unfolds, its implications stretch far beyond individual cases. At stake is whether presidential pardon power has meaningful boundaries or if it truly represents, as Alexander Hamilton once wrote, “a benign prerogative” that can be used without check.
From my vantage point covering Washington’s power corridors, I’m struck by how this moment reveals the fragility of constitutional norms we once took for granted. Whatever your political persuasion, the current pardon controversy forces us to confront difficult questions about presidential power and its limits in our democracy.
The answers we find—or fail to find—may shape executive authority for generations to come.
