How does Trump’s pardon count compare to previous presidents at the same point in their terms?

1. A wholesale clemency break with recent practice

Trump’s January 20, 2025 blanket action pardoned roughly 1,500 people charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack — an immediate spike that dwarfs the usual cadence of one‑off pardons or a handful of commutations that prior presidents typically issued early in a term ^{[1] [5]}. Journalistic tallies and DOJ postings document that mass action and additional high‑profile pardons later in 2025, showing an aggregate use of clemency unlike the restrained approach common under recent administrations ^{[4] [2]}.

2. How that compares with modern presidents (what sources say and don’t say)

Reporting cites past single‑term totals for presidents (for instance, Trump’s own first‑term total is referenced in analyses), but the available set of documents here stops short of a head‑to‑head, day‑by‑day comparative chart across presidents at identical days in office. News outlets and watchdogs emphasize that the scale of the second‑term pardons is exceptional compared with contemporary norms, but a formal per‑day comparative dataset is not provided in the available sources ^{[6] [5]}. Therefore: media and DOJ reporting establish exceptional volume for Trump in 2025, but available sources do not include a complete historical same‑point numerical comparison for every president ^[6].

3. Not just volume — profile and political ties

Coverage highlights that many of the people pardoned had political or financial ties to Trump or his allies — for example, pardons to allies tied to 2020 election efforts, wealthy donors, and high‑profile business figures — and watchdog groups flag a pattern of favoring well‑connected applicants ^{[7] [8] [9]}. The Marshall Project and Forbes report donors and allies among recipients, and Reuters/NPR document mass pardons aimed at those associated with efforts to overturn the 2020 election ^{[7] [3] [8] [9]}.

4. Legal and practical consequences historians and lawyers flag

Observers note the symbolic and practical implications: presidential pardons erase federal convictions but do not halt state prosecutions, a point multiple outlets stress while documenting the pardons of electors and allies ^{[8] [3]}. Legal analysts and opponents argue such broad pardons strain long‑standing Justice Department norms (for instance, DOJ pardon‑process standards) and risk political patronage; proponents frame the actions as correcting perceived injustices tied to January 6 and election controversies ^{[9] [10]}.

5. Watchdog tallies and institutional response

Ethics groups and journalism projects have been busy cataloging recipients: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington tracked dozens of pardons of elected officials and other politically connected figures; other outlets published extensive lists of second‑term grants ^{[11] [5]}. The Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney maintains a running list of clemency grants, which reporters used to verify the scale and timing of Trump’s 2025 actions ^{[4] [5]}.

6. How to interpret “compare at the same point in their terms” going forward

A rigorous same‑point comparison requires (a) defining the point (days in office), (b) counting pardons vs. commutations, and (c) deciding whether to include blanket or mass instruments differently than individualized grants. Contemporary sources document that, by those practical measures, Trump’s early second‑term clemency count is historically atypical, but available reporting does not provide the full historical dataset to compute a precise ranked list by day‑in‑office for every president ^{[1] [6]}. Researchers seeking that exact comparison will need to combine DOJ clemency logs with historical records for prior presidents.

If you want, I can compile the available DOJ and major‑media counts into a draft table showing Trump’s 2025 numbers alongside public totals for a handful of recent presidents (e.g., Obama, Bush, Clinton) using the sources above and flag where the historical record in these sources is incomplete.