Have any former presidents been investigated for selling favors or pardons?
Executive summary
Allegations and investigations tying former U.S. presidents or their allies to “selling” favors, appointments or pardons have surfaced repeatedly in recent years, most prominently Rod Blagojevich’s case of attempting to sell a Senate seat (a non‑presidential actor) and extensive scrutiny of presidential pardons under Donald Trump and Joe Biden; reporting and watchdogs document mass and high‑profile clemency actions that critics say raise questions about impropriety [1] [2] [3]. Multiple news outlets, watchdog groups and official records show Trump issued thousands of clemencies in 2025 and has been accused of favoring political allies and the wealthy in pardon decisions; congressional claims about Biden’s family selling access are being advanced publicly by GOP oversight leaders [2] [4] [3] [5].
1. Historical precedent: selling offices versus selling pardons
The best‑documented “selling” scandal cited in current materials involves Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted for seeking to sell a U.S. Senate appointment — a classic pay‑for‑access corruption case, not a presidential sale of pardons [1]. Available sources do not mention a former president being convicted of literally selling pardons. Instead, modern concerns focus on patterns of presidential clemency that watchdogs and commentators say look like favoritism or pay‑to‑play, especially under President Trump [1] [3].
2. Trump’s large‑scale clemency program and allegations of quid pro quo
Reporting and watchdog inventories document that President Trump granted a massive number of pardons and commutations in his second term — including blanket clemency for January 6 defendants — and that critics argue his clemency process favored political allies and the wealthy [2] [4] [3]. Investigative pieces, opinion writers and watchdog groups have described apparent patterns: bypassing the traditional Pardon Attorney process, installing loyalists, and granting clemency to allies like Rudy Giuliani and others tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election [6] [7] [8]. Opinion and local commentary go further, asserting certain pardons “appear” to be in exchange for services or access, for example claims around a pardon for a crypto executive who allegedly aided the Trump family’s business — those claims are presented as appearances of quid pro quo rather than court‑proven transactions in the provided sources [9] [6].
3. Institutional reforms, internal critics, and competing narratives
Inside the Department of Justice there were public clashes: a former Pardon Attorney, Liz Oyer, testified that the pardon process had been politicized and favored loyalty over standards, while administration officials framed pardons as corrective or reconciliatory measures [6]. Advocates for reform argue the scale and selection of pardons undercut public trust; defenders argue presidential clemency is a constitutional prerogative and that many grants reflected policy judgments or mercy [6] [10]. Sources show explicit partisan disagreement: House Republicans press corruption narratives about Biden family influence‑peddling and pardons, while pro‑pardon voices describe clemency as mercy or political restoration [5] [10].
4. Legal investigations and evidence standards reported so far
Available reporting documents investigations into possible pardon‑for‑pay schemes in prior years and continuing scrutiny in 2025, but the materials supplied do not include a court conviction of a former president for selling pardons, nor do they show a concluded federal prosecution proving a direct pay‑for‑pardon transaction by a president [11] [6]. Reuters, BBC and other outlets record prosecutions of allies and extensive pardon lists; watchdog groups catalogue who received clemency and raise conflict‑of‑interest concerns, but evidence of an explicit transactional sale—money exchanged for a presidential pardon—does not appear in the provided items [8] [3] [7].
5. Why the distinction matters — constitutional power vs. corruption
Presidential clemency is an expansive constitutional authority; critics contend that its unfettered nature enables abuses of power, especially when the process is opaque or guided by political loyalty [6]. Supporters of broad pardon use point to reconciliation and mercy as legitimate goals [10]. The current record in these sources shows allegations, investigations, mass pardons that provoke suspicion, and administrative changes at the Pardon Office — but it stops short of documenting a judicial finding that a president sold pardons for payment [6] [4] [3].
6. What to watch next
Follow official DOJ inquiries, public testimony from pardon office insiders and congressional probes for documentary evidence linking donations, services, or business deals to specific pardons; such documents would be necessary to move claims from appearance to prosecutable conduct [6] [11]. Meanwhile, watchdog databases and major news outlets will continue to catalogue recipients and post‑pardon conduct, which observers use to build patterns warranting formal probes [2] [3].
Limitations: reporting and watchdog findings cited here document large, controversial pardon programs, internal DOJ criticism, and political allegations — but the supplied sources do not include a convicted former president for selling pardons or a judicial finding proving a pardon‑for‑pay scheme by a president [1] [6] [3].