Which high-profile pardons and commutations granted by President Joe Biden were reviewed or recommended by the Office of the Pardon Attorney and what did the OPA say?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
President Biden issued thousands of acts of clemency during and at the close of his presidency, and the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) — now led by Ed Martin — has been reported to be examining many of those grants rather than publicly endorsing specific high‑profile ones [1] [2]. Reporting shows the review focuses on whether Biden personally authorized some late‑term pardons (including alleged autopen use) and whether internal screening identified problematic recipients, while Biden allies insist the White House thoughtfully reviewed requests [2] [3] [4].
1. What the OPA officially published and what it does: the record of pardons and commutations
The OPA maintains public lists of pardons and commutations granted by President Biden — including detailed entries and explanatory notes for individual warrants — and those lists document the scale of clemency actions attributed to the administration [1] [5]. The public OPA pages are the primary source used by analysts to count Biden’s clemency acts and to identify named recipients and group commutations [1] [5].
2. Which high‑profile names were included on Biden’s clemency lists
News reporting and compiled lists show several high‑profile grants that drew attention: the pardon of Hunter Biden (reported by Pew summarizing OPA data), mass commutations of roughly 1,500 people released to home confinement during the COVID pandemic, and later pardons of public figures including officials and political actors enumerated in public compilations [6] [7] [8]. Those items appear on the OPA’s public record of Biden’s pardons and commutations [1] [5].
3. What the OPA said publicly about recommending or endorsing specific high‑profile grants
Available reporting does not show the OPA publicly issuing case‑by‑case recommendations that then were explicitly quoted as recommending particular high‑profile pardons such as Hunter Biden, Mark Milley, or Anthony Fauci; instead, the OPA’s public output has been the formal list of clemency grants and explanatory warrant notes, not advocacy statements endorsing named recipients [1] [5]. In short, the OPA’s public role in the record is to publish the grants and explanatory notes — reporting does not provide OPA statements that it recommended or approved specific high‑profile pardons beyond those entries [1] [5].
4. The internal review led by the pardon attorney: what reporters say OPA is doing
After the administration change, Reuters and other outlets reported that Ed Martin, serving as pardon attorney, told staff he was conducting an investigation into Biden‑era clemency that centers on whether the president “was competent and whether others were taking advantage of him” and whether an autopen or other means were used, and that his office would not defend prior acts of clemency “without further investigation” [2] [3]. CNN reporting cites internal Justice Department communications that identified a subset of cases “highly problematic,” and Martin’s email referenced those internal warnings as part of the review [3].
5. Which specific high‑profile grants reporters say were under scrutiny
Reporting specifies categories and some named examples under review: pardons to family members (most notably Hunter Biden), mass commutations issued in December 2024 and January 2025 affecting thousands, and certain controversial commutations including death‑row cases flagged by DOJ staff as problematic (reporting names Biden’s son and large commutation batches and cites specific flagged cases) [6] [7] [3] [2]. Reuters and CNN emphasize the review is broad and procedural rather than an OPA declaration that particular clemencies were invalid [2] [3].
6. Alternative views, legal limits, and what the public record does not show
Biden allies told reporters the president and his team “thoughtfully reviewed” clemency requests, pushing back on suggestions that staffers acted unilaterally [4]. Independent observers and legal reminders note the constitutional breadth of the pardon power and that there is no established mechanism for a successor to retroactively revoke a predecessor’s valid clemency — points raised in legal commentary and watchdog coverage [9]. The public reporting and the OPA’s published lists do not, in the sources provided, contain a formal OPA recommendation endorsing or opposing specific high‑profile Biden pardons beyond listing them and, in the post‑transition period, internal review notes and Martin’s announced inquiry [1] [5] [2] [3].