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.
Did trump pardon war criminals
Executive Summary
President Donald Trump issued clemency actions that fully pardoned or reversed punishments for three U.S. service members whose cases involved alleged war‑crime conduct: 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, Maj. Matthew Golsteyn, and Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, actions that drew sustained criticism for undercutting military justice and praise from supporters who argued the troops were treated unfairly [1] [2] [3] [4]. These clemency moves occurred in November 2019 and were widely reported and analyzed thereafter; advocates for accountability say the pardons risk encouraging impunity, while defenders cite procedural flaws and political lobbying as reasons for clemency [2] [5] [4].
1. How the Pardons Happened and Who Was Involved — A Short Accounting That Matters
President Trump granted full pardons to Army officers First Lieutenant Clint Lorance and Major Matthew Golsteyn and restored the rank of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher in a cluster of actions that effectively erased some convictions or discipline tied to conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to contemporaneous White House statements and reporting [2] [3]. The Lorance case involved a conviction for ordering fire that killed unarmed Afghan civilians; Golsteyn faced a murder charge for killing an Afghan man and had been under investigation; Gallagher was court‑martialed on multiple charges and convicted on a lesser charge for posing with a corpse while acquitted of murder, then had his Navy rank restored, drawing attention because the actions altered military disciplinary outcomes [1] [3]. These moves were unusual in scale and nature for wartime conduct, prompting immediate comment from military leaders and civil liberties groups [4].
2. What Critics Say — Undermining Military Justice and Encouraging Impunity
Civil‑liberties and military‑justice advocates argued the pardons weakened the Uniform Code of Military Justice and signaled tolerance for unlawful battlefield conduct, warning that removing consequences for actions alleged to be war crimes erodes discipline, accountability, and the rule of law in combat zones; the American Civil Liberties Union characterized the pardons as sabotaging the military‑justice system and criticized the precedent set when civilian politicians overturn or reverse military convictions [4]. Pentagon officials and senior officers publicly expressed concern that such clemency could undercut commanders’ ability to enforce standards and could harm troop conduct and civilian protection policies, a critique repeated across major reporting at the time [3] [2].
3. What Supporters Argue — Flawed Prosecutions and Political Lobbying
Supporters framed the clemency as correction of flawed prosecutions, overzealous investigators, or unfair outcomes for service members, noting lobbying efforts including media advocates who pressed the White House on behalf of the individuals, and arguing that justice had been miscarried or that prosecutors abused discretion in wartime cases; reporting highlighted influential advocates such as media figures who intervened in public debate [5]. Proponents emphasized mercy for troops operating in chaotic combat environments and portrayed the actions as restoring honor and correcting excesses of military prosecutors rather than condoning unlawful behavior, a narrative that shaped conservative commentary and parts of public opinion [6].
4. The Facts vs. the Label “War Criminals” — Legal Reality and Public Framing
Legally, the three cases present different statuses: Lorance was convicted at court‑martial; Golsteyn faced charges though his situation involved complex prosecutorial decisions; Gallagher was acquitted of the most serious charges but convicted of lesser offenses and later had rank restored, so the term “war criminals” is legally imprecise when applied uniformly and is contested depending on conviction status and the scope of the pardon or restoration [3] [1]. Journalistic and advocacy accounts reported the clemency as relating to allegations or convictions tied to wartime conduct, but accuracy requires differentiating convictions, pending charges, acquittals, and administrative penalties rather than blanket labels [2] [5] [4].
5. Where Analysts Still Disagree — Long‑Term Consequences and Political Context
Observers continue to debate long‑term consequences: critics warn the pardons set a dangerous precedent for civilian interference in military justice and could impair accountability for grave misconduct, while defenders argue the actions addressed injustice or prosecutorial overreach in specific cases and reflected political judgments about treatment of service members; these competing framings were documented immediately after the November 2019 actions and in subsequent analyses that cite both the legal complexity and the political pressures behind clemency [3] [5] [4]. The clemency episode remains a focal example of tensions between executive clemency powers, military discipline, and public debate over how to balance support for troops with adherence to international humanitarian and criminal law norms [4] [2].