Fact check: How do presidential pardon patterns differ between Republican and Democratic presidents?

Executive summary — Quick answer up front: Presidents from both parties exercise broad clemency powers, but recent analyses show distinct emphases: critics allege that former President Trump’s pardons skew toward political allies and supporters, while President Biden’s large volume of clemency actions reflects an institutional push to reduce criminal-justice backlogs and grant relief at scale. Both patterns coexist with procedural constraints and divergent agendas—political reciprocity on one side and systemic clemency initiatives on the other ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.

1. What the reporting claims and why it matters — The headline allegations extracted

Reporting on recent presidencies makes several recurring claims: that Trump granted pardons notably to Republican politicians, donors, and public supporters as rewards for loyalty; that these pardons include figures convicted of felonies and activists aligned with his politics; and that Biden’s administration has issued the largest number of clemency acts in modern history, focusing on a high volume of grants and commutations. Those claims frame clemency either as partisan patronage or as remedial policy action, shaping public debate about the legitimacy and aims of presidential mercy ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

2. The hard numbers and institutional context — What the data and institutions actually say

Quantitative and institutional reports underscore that pardons operate inside a formal but imperfect system: the Office of the Pardon Attorney screens petitions, and RAND’s analysis details the evaluation and backlog dynamics that influence outcomes. Pew’s 2025 analysis records that Biden’s 4,245 acts of clemency exceed any prior 20th- and 21st-century president’s total, indicating an unprecedented scale. The institutional role of review and backlog means presidential discretion is exercised on top of procedural recommendations, not purely as raw output of partisan impulse ^{[6] [4]}.

3. The Republican-pattern narrative — Recent evidence of patronage and political reciprocity

Contemporary reporting in 2025 highlights a pattern in which Trump’s clemency choices often favored Republican allies and individuals who publicly supported him, including convicted former lawmakers and activists. Articles from January through October 2025 document pardons and commutations for Republican congressmen, anti-abortion activists, and figures who praised the president, arguing these moves served political ends rather than consistent criminal-justice reform. This narrative presents pardons as instruments of political reward rather than rehabilitation or corrective justice, and it is reinforced by timelines showing recipients’ prior political loyalty ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. The Democratic-pattern narrative — Scale, backlog relief, and policy-driven clemency

Analysts document that President Biden pursued clemency with an emphasis on volume and systemic relief, granting thousands of acts of clemency as part of a broader policy approach to reduce mass-criminalization’s long tails. Pew’s February 2025 report frames Biden’s output as historically large, and investigative coverage notes a focus on commuting sentences and addressing long-standing backlogs. That pattern is portrayed as policy-driven and remedial, prioritizing population-level impact over individualized political favor, although it has drawn political scrutiny for specific high-profile pardons ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Reconciling differences — Overlap, exceptions, and why simple partisan labels mislead

The clemency landscape shows overlap: presidents of both parties have issued politically controversial pardons historically (e.g., Gerald Ford’s Nixon pardon) and both can use clemency for political or policy reasons. RAND’s procedural work warns against attributing all outcomes solely to personal favor because of institutional screening processes and variable petition backlogs. Labeling clemency “partisan” obscures a mix of motives—policy initiatives, individual mercy, legal technicalities, and political calculation—and ignores how procedural factors shape who gets considered and when ^{[6] [5]}.

6. Sources, perspectives, and possible agendas — Who’s framing the story and why it matters

The sources asserting political favoritism cite patterns of recipient selection and public praise, suggesting an agenda to highlight partisan corruption risks; these pieces are recent (Jan–Oct 2025) and focus on high-profile recipients to illustrate a trend. The quantitative studies and institutional reports emphasize scale and procedural context, suggesting reformist or administrative agendas that favor systemwide relief. Readers should note that advocacy or investigative outlets stress individual abuses, while analytic institutions emphasize structural explanations—both valid but pointing to different remedies ^{[1] [2] [3] [6] [4] [5]}.

7. Bottom line and what’s missing — How to interpret pardons going forward

The factual comparison shows two empirical facts: Trump’s recent pardons drew criticism for rewarding allies and supporters, while Biden’s clemency actions are unprecedented in volume and oriented toward backlog relief. Neither pattern tells the whole story—procedural filters, case mix, and presidential objectives matter—and debates about reform should address transparency, consistent criteria, and the role of the Office of the Pardon Attorney. For policy or partisan conclusions, further systematic data on case types, timelines, and outcomes would be required beyond the current reporting and institutional summaries ^{[1] [2] [3] [6] [4] [5]}.