Fact check: How often does the Office of the Pardon Attorney formally recommend clemency to presidents, and how did that process operate under the Biden administration 2021–2024?

1. Why OPA exists and what “formal recommendation” means — clearing up the institutional role

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney exists to investigate applications, collect records, interview relevant parties, and prepare written recommendations for the President on pardons, commutations, and other forms of executive clemency; its procedural role is investigatory and advisory, not determinative ^{[1] [4]}. OPA’s standard practice is to screen petitions, request records from courts and corrections officials, and deliver a memorandum to the Attorney General and to the White House counsel when appropriate, enabling the President to make an informed choice. Public-facing materials reiterate that the President may act independently of OPA recommendations and can grant clemency without OPA involvement, which frames the word “formal recommendation” as an internal DOJ product rather than a binding directive ^{[1] [3]}. Understanding that distinction is essential to interpreting debate over frequency.

2. The raw numbers reported for Biden-era clemency actions and what they do — trends, not causal links

Publicly reported figures attribute a rising number of clemency grants across the Biden years: the compilations cited indicate 191 grants in 2021, 259 in 2022, 380 in 2023, and 466 in 2024, reflecting an upward trajectory in presidential grants that includes individual pardons, commutations, and targeted proclamations such as marijuana possession relief ^{[2] [3]}. Those totals are records of what the President granted, not records of how many recommendations OPA issued or whether OPA recommended those specific grants, and the sources explicitly note the President need not follow OPA advice ^{[2] [1]}. The increase in grants may reflect White House policy emphasis, process improvements inside DOJ intended to shorten processing time, and direct presidential initiatives; available documents show improvements but stop short of mapping each grant to an OPA memorandum ^{[5] [3]}.

3. How the Biden White House handled clemency between routine petitions and policy-driven proclamations

The Biden administration used both case-by-case clemency and larger policy steps, notably issuing pardons and commutation proclamations related to federal marijuana possession in October 2022 and December 2023, which are presidential acts that do not require OPA concurrence to take effect ^[3]. For many individual grants, OPA’s background investigations and written recommendations traditionally feed into White House decisions; in practice during 2021–2024, OPA continued routine investigative work while the President at times bypassed formal recommendation channels for policy proclamations or high-profile pardons, per the institution’s long-standing guidance that presidential prerogative is sole and final ^{[1] [3]}. DOJ efforts to streamline forms and processing times in late 2023 also shaped throughput, but those reforms concern processing speed rather than mandatory endorsement of presidential action ^[5].

4. Disputes, internal critiques, and claims about process integrity — multiple perspectives

After 2024, contested narratives emerged about whether OPA recommendations were fully respected and whether political actors unduly influenced outcomes; one internal critique alleges irregularities and questions about formalization of clemency signatures, framing some decisions as potentially driven by politics rather than process compliance ^[6]. This critique comes from named DOJ figures and reflects an internal accountability posture—it signals institutional friction and invites forensic review—but it does not, by itself, overturn the statutory framework that gives the President unilateral clemency power and allows pardons to be issued without OPA support ^{[6] [1]}. Observers who favor executive discretion point to tradition and constitutional text; those who emphasize procedural integrity stress the need for transparent records tying each grant to an OPA recommendation or explicit White House rationale ^{[1] [6]}.

5. The practical bottom line and open questions for researchers and the public

The established facts are straightforward: OPA prepares formal recommendations as part of its mission, Presidents receive recommendations but are not bound by them, and the Biden administration both used OPA’s machinery for casework and exercised direct presidential clemency authority for policy actions and individual grants, with reported totals rising from 2021 through 2024 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. What remains unresolved in the public record is the exact frequency with which OPA issued formal written recommendations that directly preceded or opposed each presidential grant during 2021–2024; answering that requires internal DOJ memorandum logs or White House correspondence that have not been fully disclosed ^{[2] [5]}. Researchers should seek OPA memorandum counts, White House counsel files, and any post-2024 DOJ reviews to map recommendations to outcomes and to assess whether procedural reforms altered recommendation rates.