Trump Considers Blanket Pardons While Democrats Sharpen Their Knives

The pardon power exists for grace, not gamesmanship. But here we are again, watching a president treat constitutional authority like a get-out-of-jail-free card for his entire operation.

President Trump told Time magazine this week he’s mulling pre-emptive pardons for administration officials before his term ends. His reasoning? Joe Biden did it first. “Sleepy Joe gave pardons to everybody,” Trump said. “He gave them to Fauci. He gave them to this. But you mean I’m not allowed to give them, but Sleepy Joe’s allowed to give them?”

It’s the political equivalent of a playground argument, and frankly, both sides deserve the criticism. Biden’s last-minute clemency spree was a transparent attempt to shield folks like Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley, and the January 6 committee members from potential prosecution. That move disappointed Republicans who wanted accountability, not immunity. Fair point there.

But Trump’s response isn’t about principle. It’s about protection.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump promised top officials he’d “pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval.” That’s not justice. That’s insurance. When a president starts handing out pardons like party favors before anyone’s even charged with a crime, we’ve crossed from executive power into executive paranoia.

You know what’s missing from this entire debate? Any discussion of whether these people actually deserve pardons. The whole conversation assumes wrongdoing is inevitable, prosecution is political, and accountability is something only the other side needs to worry about. Both parties have embraced this cynical calculus, and the American people are left wondering if the law applies equally to anyone in Washington.

Trump’s first term ended with 143 pardons on his final day, including Steve Bannon, who faced wire fraud and money laundering charges. On his first day back in office last year, he pardoned roughly 1,500 January 6 defendants. Since then, another 170 pardons and commutations have followed. The pattern is clear. The pardon pen flows freely when loyalty runs deep.

Now Trump’s openly discussing his next batch, anticipating that Democrats might retake the House in the midterms. “They’ll probably go after me and I’ll go after them,” he told Time. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has already promised aggressive oversight and accountability for what he calls “the crooks.” The House can impeach, hold officials in contempt, and conduct investigations that make life miserable, even if they can’t bring criminal charges themselves.

This entire saga reveals something rotten at the core of modern governance. We’ve normalized the idea that serving in an administration means you might need a pardon. Think about that for a second. When did working for the president become a criminal liability requiring advance legal protection?

Limited government conservatives should be troubled by this development. The pardon power was meant to correct injustices and show mercy where the law proved too harsh. It wasn’t designed as a tool to help politicians escape consequences for decisions made in office. Every time a president uses it to shield allies, cronies, or administration officials from scrutiny, it erodes the principle that no one stands above the law.

Trump’s argument that Biden started it carries some weight. Biden’s preemptive pardons were unprecedented and politically motivated. But responding with your own blanket immunity plan doesn’t restore integrity. It confirms that both parties view the law as something that applies to opponents, not allies.

The real losers here are Americans who still believe government officials should face consequences when they break the law. Whether it’s Biden protecting Fauci or Trump promising mass pardons for his team, the message is the same. Power protects power. Loyalty trumps legality. And the pardon power, once a tool of mercy, has become just another weapon in the endless partisan war consuming Washington.

Republicans should demand better. So should Democrats. But neither side seems particularly interested in restraint when their own people need protection. And that’s the most depressing part of this whole circus.