Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Did the Biden administration grant any controversial or high-profile pardons in 2024 and what were the reasons?
Executive Summary
President Biden issued an unusually large set of clemency actions near the end of 2024 that included 39 pardons and roughly 1,499 commutations, and those acts drew intense political attention because they encompassed high-profile, sometimes preemptive, grants of mercy — most notably a pardon for his son Hunter Biden and reported pardons for figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and Gen. Mark Milley according to contemporary reporting [1] [2] [3]. The clemency package was defended by proponents as a broad use of executive authority to correct nonviolent sentencing disparities and to protect certain individuals from anticipated political prosecutions, while critics portrayed specific pardons as ethically fraught and potentially nepotistic or politically motivated [4] [5].
1. A Record-breaking Cleanup: The Scale and Timing That Shook Washington
The most consistent factual claim across contemporary accounts is that the Biden administration executed an unprecedented volume of clemency actions in December 2024, commuting approximately 1,499 sentences and pardoning 39 people in a single day, which multiple outlets framed as the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history [6] [1] [5]. Reporters emphasized the timing—late in the administration and concentrated on individuals who had served portions of their sentences, many under pandemic-era home confinement—framing the move as both an exercise of mercy and a political maneuver timed before a presidential transition [1] [7]. Supporters cited the administration’s clemency office and criteria for selecting nonviolent cases; critics raised alarms about transparency and the optics of breadth versus individualized review [5] [1].
2. The Hunter Biden Pardon: Why It Dominated the Headlines
Multiple sources report that Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, who had faced convictions related to federal tax and firearm charges, and that this pardon became the focal point of debate about abuse of power and nepotism [2] [4] [3]. Coverage split along partisan lines: opponents characterized the pardon as a clear conflict of interest that undermined public trust, while defenders pointed to the president’s constitutional pardon power and argued that the action could be framed as shielding a family member from politically motivated prosecutions under a prospective opposing administration [4] [3]. Journalists also noted the unusual optics of a president issuing clemency for a direct family member, which historically invites heightened scrutiny and political fallout regardless of legal authority [2].
3. Preemptive and High-Profile Names: Merit or Political Insurance?
Analyses claim the administration issued preemptive pardons for several prominent figures—including reported clemency for Dr. Anthony Fauci and retired Gen. Mark Milley—which raised questions about the criteria used and whether the pardons served to protect officials for actions taken while in government service [3] [8]. Proponents argue these preemptive moves protect public servants from politicized prosecutions and preserve governance continuity, framing such pardons as a legitimate use of executive discretion. Critics contend preemptive pardons can appear self-serving or serve as insurance against accountability, and suggested the practice risks normalizing immunity for powerful actors, potentially eroding norms of oversight [3] [8].
4. The Administration’s Rationale: Mercy, Correcting Harsh Outcomes, and Political Context
The cited accounts indicate the administration defended its clemency sweep as targeted largely at nonviolent offenders who had demonstrated rehabilitation, many of whom had served significant portions of their sentences or were confined during the COVID-19 pandemic, and as an effort to correct sentencing disparities and provide second chances [1] [7]. Officials and supporters framed the mass commutations as humanitarian and restorative, and pointed to established clemency processes. Yet contemporaneous reporting also notes the political context: a president acting at the end of a term with a looming successor perceived as likely to prosecute political opponents, which the administration used to justify certain preemptive actions as protective rather than preferential [1] [4].
5. Political Reactions and the Broader Legal Debate: Accountability Versus Mercy
Public reaction split predictably: Republicans and some Democrats criticized select pardons as abuses of power, especially the pardon of a close family member, while advocates for criminal-justice reform and administration allies praised the broad commutations as addressing systemic injustice and overcrowded prisons [2] [4] [5]. Legal scholars and commentators in the referenced reporting debated the long-term consequences: some warned that high-profile, preemptive pardons could set troubling precedents for immunity and weaken deterrence, while others argued that executive clemency has always been a constitutionally sanctioned tool for redressing legal excesses. The documents collectively show that the event was both a policy statement on criminal justice and a flashpoint in partisan conflict over norms and accountability [6] [4].