Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Abused pardon power: One of the bigger problems Trump's leaving behind

Opinion

Roger Stone

If you're a Trump crony, like Roger Stone, crimes are not really crimes, writes Marcuss.

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
Marcuss, a retired partner at the law firm Bryan Cave and a former senior fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School, is on the steering committee of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

The president's pardon power is thought by many to be virtually unlimited. As he heads out the door, President Trump's pardoning of criminals who lack remorse and cronies who lack conscience challenges us to reexamine that belief.

The unadorned words of the Constitution seem to place no limits on the pardon power except in the case of impeachment. But skeptics may be forgiven for asking why the Constitution should permit pardons for murderers, thieves, tax-cheats, fraudsters and secret foreign agents — or those who have obstructed justice, lied to the FBI, abused immigrants, used campaign and corporate cash for improper purposes, disguised personal expenditures as charitable contributions and used prostitutes to entrap enemies.

Pardons like these undermine the entire criminal justice system. If you're a Trump crony or someone who obstructed justice to protect him, crimes are not really crimes. They are a sordid badge of honor.

There are two systems of justice in this country, one for the rich and well-connected and the other for everyone else. Trump's pardons create two more categories, one for those in the president's favor and another for those who are not. Criminals in the president's favor go free. The rest end up in jail. There is little wonder why cynicism runs rampant.

Cynicism will be one of the lasting legacies in Trump's parade of horrors. And it pervades much more than the administration of justice.

Consider: Use of the White House to enrich the president and his family, use of the Justice Department to protect the president personally and punish the president's enemies, interference with congressional oversight responsibilities by withholding information or prohibiting witnesses from testifying.

Consider also retaliation against whistleblowers, governing by executive order instead of congressional enactment, trashing international agreements, encouraging violence, failing to protect the public from a health crisis for fear of hurting the stock market — and, at the end, throwing the country into turmoil by falsely challenging the legitimacy of presidential elections.

We used to think it cannot happen here. Well, it has been happening here, and the country must do something about it. We cannot afford simply to hope that another Trump will not reappear in the Oval Office. Human nature has not changed. Greed, the seduction of power, and lack of moral principle lurk in the shadows, ready always to pounce. Future Trumps may be more skilled than the original in stealing democracy.

Tackling the unfettered exercise of the pardon power should be among the first orders of business in the new Biden administration. The Constitution must not be allowed to become a death warrant when politicians behave as if it contained no constraints.

The pardon power has been used by President Trump to create a class of citizens who are above the law. It has been bad enough when Trump issued a pardon after a conviction or guilty plea. It has been even worse when he has telegraphed in advance that pardons for future illegal behavior are likely. That is nothing more than a license to ignore the law. And when a president pardons those who commit crimes in service of his interests, he licenses his own wrongdoing as well.

Richard Nixon one haughtily proclaimed that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." Trump once said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and no one would stop him. A president who wields the pardon to shield his own criminality would be out-Nixoning Nixon.

The fact that the Constitution appears to place few restrictions on the exercise of the pardon power should not be an insuperable obstacle to reform. Many matters on which the Constitution is silent are dealt with through legislation to fill in gaps or reconcile conflicting provisions.

Among the many examples are constraints imposed by legislation on the use of firearms despite the absence of constraining words in the Second Amendment. Another is the permission enshrined in law to sue for libel or provide government support for religious-run schools despite the absence of constraining words in the First Amendment.

It is hard to imagine any good argument for permitting pardons as personal or political favors or to cover up a president's wrongdoing. It is equally hard to imagine a good argument against constraining the pardon power to cases of recognized injustice or situations of compelling mercy.

Some say that there are difficulties under the Constitution in trying to restrict the president's pardon power or defining when pardons are appropriate. Some also say there are difficulties in tackling other presidential abuses of power.

But difficult issues are difficult because of their importance. A hope that the depredations of the Trump administration will disappear when Trump is out of the Oval Office is naïve. Abuses of presidential power have been accumulating for decades. Reform of the pardon power is an essential starting point despite the challenges because the corrupt forgiveness of criminality is the rot that will eventually destroy the Constitution itself and render other reforms irrelevant.

In Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice," Portia instructs that "the quality of mercy is not strained" and that mercy blesses the giver as well as the receiver. A corrupt pardon dressed in robes of phony mercy blesses neither. It diminishes both giver and receiver and threatens the rule of law that is the bedrock of American democracy.


Read More

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less