Have any presidents attempted to pardon military personnel accused of war crimes historically?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Yes — U.S. presidents have intervened to spare or relieve military personnel accused or convicted of battlefield offenses, but the most direct, full pardons of service members found by military juries to have committed acts amounting to war crimes occurred in 2019 under President Donald Trump, a set of interventions widely described as unprecedented and deeply controversial [1] [2].
1. The 2019 interventions: who, when and what they did
In two rounds in 2019 President Trump issued clemency that directly affected servicemembers implicated in battlefield killings and related misconduct: in May he pardoned First Lieutenant Michael Behenna, and on November 15 he pardoned First Lieutenant Clint Lorance and Major Mathew Golsteyn and restored the rank of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher — actions that removed punishments or convictions tied to killings and other grave battlefield misconduct [3] [2] [4].
2. Why commentators call those moves unprecedented
Scholars, civil liberties groups, and legal commentators have characterized the 2019 actions as the first time in U.S. history that a president issued pardons that squarely relieved military personnel convicted of, or facing prosecution for, conduct amounting to war crimes — a claim repeatedly made in academic analyses and advocacy reporting [1] [5] [4]. Those accounts note that earlier presidential clemencies have touched military actors (for example, Nixon altered Lieutenant William Calley’s confinement during his appeal), but argue the Trump actions differed qualitatively because they fully removed penalties or halted prosecutions for battlefield killings adjudicated by military processes [4].
3. Historical analogues and limits to the “first” claim
There are historical analogues involving presidents and military defendants: Andrew Johnson issued sweeping pardons for former Confederate officials and military personnel after the Civil War, a controversial exercise of clemency though not framed in modern “war crimes” terms [6]. Legal scholars point out these precedents show broad presidential clemency powers, but many observers say the 2019 pardons are distinct because they involved recent criminal findings by military juries about violations of the laws of war [1] [4]. Reporting and scholarship in the provided sources do not claim a perfect one-to-one precedent that matches the legal and international-law dimensions of the 2019 actions [1] [4] [6].
4. Domestic and international backlash — law, military, and human-rights perspectives
The pardons drew forceful criticism from U.S. legal and military figures and from international bodies: the New York City Bar Association’s task force condemned the pardons as undermining military justice [3], the U.N. human-rights office warned they contradicted obligations under international humanitarian law [7], and civil liberties organizations like the ACLU warned the moves sabotaged military accountability [5]. Academic and policy analyses flagged risks to reporting, deterrence, and the integrity of courts-martial while noting the extraordinary nature of pretrial and post-conviction interventions [3] [1] [4].
5. Arguments in defense and the contested legal terrain
Defenders argued the clemencies corrected miscarriages, addressed battlefield ambiguity, and bolstered morale, with some military lawyers and commentators urging prudential restraint rather than categorical prohibition of such pardons [8] [1]. Conversely, analysts have raised a stark counterargument: that pardons of war-crimes prosecutions could themselves violate the laws of war or create impunity, a contention explored in legal commentary that questions whether certain pardons might breach international obligations [9].
6. Implications and remaining uncertainties
The record in the provided reporting makes clear that presidents have used clemency to intervene in military cases and that the Trump-era actions stand out for directly nullifying or halting military prosecutions for conduct described as amounting to war crimes; scholars call them historically consequential and novel in their modern context, even as older presidential amnesties and interventions show precedent for wide clemency power [1] [4] [6]. The sources do not resolve whether such pardons are illegal under international criminal law — that remains a contested legal question explored but not settled in the academic literature and policy commentary [9].