Which military personnel has Donald Trump pardoned for crimes related to wartime conduct?
Executive summary
Donald J. Trump has issued clemency that directly affected U.S. military personnel convicted or accused of wartime conduct: he pardoned First Lieutenant Clint Lorance and Major Mathew Golsteyn and restored the rank of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, actions first publicized in 2019 and cited repeatedly in later analysis [1] [2]. Civil liberties and international-law groups, along with former military leaders, warned these interventions undermine military justice and could encourage impunity for battlefield abuses [3] [2].
1. Who was pardoned or restored — the short list
The clearest, repeatedly documented cases are three men: Lt. Clint Lorance (pardoned), Maj. Mathew Golsteyn (pardoned), and Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher (rank restored after a military conviction) — actions the White House announced on November 15, 2019 [1] [2]. Scholarly and advocacy reporting treats all three interventions as examples of presidential intervention in prosecutions or punishments tied to wartime conduct [2].
2. What the official acts did, precisely
According to reporting at the time, Trump granted “full pardons” to Lorance and Golsteyn and ordered that Gallagher’s previously held rank be restored after his conviction and reduction in rank; the White House framed these as corrections of wrongful outcomes for soldiers [1]. Academic and legal analysis describe the effect as removing punishments or otherwise intervening to reverse military justice outcomes relating to alleged or adjudicated criminal acts abroad [2].
3. Why these moves sparked fierce criticism
Civil‑liberties organizations and former military leaders argued the pardons weakened the integrity of the military justice system and risked signaling tolerance for war crimes, arguing that accountability for battlefield misconduct is a last‑resort protection for civilians and troops alike [3] [2]. The ACLU and other commentators described the moves as “sabotaging” military justice by undermining deterrence and due process for victims [3].
4. Legal and scholarly framing: presidential power versus international law
Legal scholars note that the president’s Article II pardon power reaches federal offenses, including those prosecuted for conduct abroad, and therefore can lawfully affect military war‑crimes prosecutions [2]. Simultaneously, commentators warn that pardons in such cases raise complex international‑law questions and could attract condemnation under the laws of war, with some arguing that certain pardons may even violate international obligations [4] [2].
5. Broader pattern and political context
Observers place these military clemency acts inside a wider pattern of aggressive pardon use by Trump during his presidencies; reporting shows he has issued a high volume of pardons and restorations, prompting debate over whether clemency is being deployed for political allies or as corrective justice [5] [6] [7]. Advocacy groups and some former DOJ officials later criticized the clemency process as favoring political considerations over standard review [6] [8].
6. Diverging views among experts and officials
Supporters of the interventions argued they remedied unjust prosecutions or excessive punishment of soldiers operating in combat’s fog; the White House presented the actions as restoring fairness [1]. Critics — including the ACLU and military legal scholars — counter that individual mercy cannot substitute for institutional accountability and that these specific acts risked encouraging impunity [3] [2]. Both perspectives appear in the record of reporting and analysis [1] [3] [2].
7. What reporting does not say and open questions
Available sources do not mention any additional named U.S. military personnel pardoned for wartime conduct beyond Lorance, Golsteyn, and Gallagher in the coverage provided here; they also do not establish a legal consensus that such pardons are themselves unlawful under U.S. law, though some argue they may violate international obligations [1] [2] [4]. The longer‑term effects on military prosecutions and battlefield behavior remain contested in the scholarship and advocacy literature cited [3] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers
The factual record in reporting and legal scholarship identifies three high‑profile interventions by Trump that directly affected military personnel tied to allegations or convictions for wartime conduct: Lorance, Golsteyn and Gallagher [1] [2]. Those acts produced immediate praise from some quarters and sustained alarm from civil‑liberties groups, legal scholars, and former military leaders over the implications for accountability and international law [3] [2].