What high-profile or controversial pardons did Trump issue and why were they criticized?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
President Trump has issued thousands of clemency actions this year, including a blanket pardon for roughly 1,500 people charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, mass pardons for “alternate electors” and Rudy Giuliani-related actors, high-profile individual pardons such as Ross Ulbricht and former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, and the surprise pardon of Rep. Henry Cuellar — moves critics say often bypassed normal Justice Department review and favored political allies [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. A new scale and a political pattern
Trump’s clemency program has been unusually expansive: reporting and compilations show more than 1,600 grants by mid‑2025 and a single-day blanket clemency for nearly 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants on inauguration day [2] [1]. Analysts and news organizations note the pattern is heavily political — many beneficiaries were prosecuted for actions tied to the 2020 election or prosecuted during the Biden administration — prompting observers to call the effort transactional and loyalty-driven [6] [7].
2. The Jan. 6 blanket pardon: legal shield or reward for violence?
On January 20, 2025, Trump issued a proclamation that broadly pardoned people charged or convicted for offenses relating to the Jan. 6 attack; most received full pardons while some sentences were commuted [1]. Critics framed the move as undermining accountability for assaults on police and the rule of law; the Marshall Project documented that the pardons included people who used weapons or bear spray against officers and noted Trump’s rapid, unconventional use of clemency [8]. Supporters defended it as corrective for alleged due‑process failures in prosecutions [1].
3. Bypassing the Office of the Pardon Attorney
Multiple outlets report Trump sidestepped established clemency review channels, firing the career pardon attorney Liz Oyer and installing a political ally, then appointing a different clemency recommender — moves that critics say removed procedural safeguards designed to assess public safety and fairness [2] [8]. The Guardian and The Marshall Project specifically argue the lack of normal review increased the likelihood pardoned individuals would reoffend or that decisions served political objectives rather than rehabilitation [4] [8].
4. High‑profile individual pardons that raised eyebrows
Trump’s pardons included Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road dark web market, and Juan Orlando Hernández, the ex‑Honduran president convicted in the U.S. of facilitating massive cocaine trafficking — cases that commentators said conflicted with Trump’s stated anti‑drug rhetoric and posed reputational risks [3]. The New York Times and other opinion writers saw these choices as emblematic of a puzzling selection of beneficiaries, asking publicly why certain white‑collar or foreign political figures were chosen [9] [3].
5. Pardons with spillover effects and legal uncertainty
Legal scholars warned some proclamations may have broader unintended legal effects. For example, experts told The Guardian that pardoning Giuliani and other fake‑elector participants could be interpreted as extending protection to others who committed voter‑fraud‑related acts in 2020, creating a potentially wide legal ripple [10]. Reuters and other outlets noted Trump even moved to nullify certain Biden autopen actions, illustrating legal contention around executive acts and signaling continued litigation and political battles over the scope of pardons [11] [10].
6. Political messaging and expectations of loyalty
Trump’s pardon of Rep. Henry Cuellar and his wife — a surprise to many reporters — illustrated the transactional element critics allege: pardons used as political leverage and signals of expected loyalty, not only mercy [5] [7]. Axios reported Trump publicly scolding Cuellar after the pardon, underscoring that clemency has become part of a broader strategy to bind or discipline political actors [7].
7. Two competing narratives: mercy versus erosion of norms
Supporters argue the president is correcting injustices, speeding clemency for people they view as politically targeted, and restoring mercy where bureaucracy stalled [1]. Opponents argue the pace, choice of beneficiaries and the abandonment of DOJ norms amount to favoritism that undermines accountability and public safety; The Guardian, The Marshall Project and Prison Policy contend the actions reflect cronyism and increased risk of reoffending because traditional vetting was bypassed [4] [8] [12].
Limitations: available sources document many high‑profile examples and criticism but do not provide an exhaustive legal analysis of each pardon’s long‑term judicial consequences; congressional oversight and court challenges remain likely and are discussed in opinion and reporting [9] [11].