Who can issue a pardon for a sitting president?

1. Constitutional Text and the Plain Meaning That Shapes Power

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution assigns the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States to the President, and the text contains a clear exception for impeachment, which removes any federal pardon authority over that process; this construction makes the pardon power facially exclusive to the Presidency and limited to federal criminal matters ^{[1] [7]}. The Library of Congress and the Constitution Annotated summarize that exclusivity and emphasize that the pardon power applies after commission of offenses and can be broad in scope, but the clause’s silence about self‑pardons or pardons issued to a sitting President creates a legal lacuna that scholars debate rather than a textual authorization for any other branch to intervene ^{[1] [2]}. Government guidance from the Office of the Pardon Attorney reiterates that clemency is a Presidential prerogative, reinforcing the textual reading that no other official has statutory authority to pardon a President while in office ^[3].

2. Scholarly Dispute Over Self‑Pardons and Judicial Unsettledness

A prominent and persistent dispute among legal scholars centers on whether a President can pardon himself; strong arguments against self‑pardon invoke the principle that no one may be a judge in their own case, constitutional structure, and the impeachment exception, while counterarguments rely on a literal reading of the broad textual power granted to the President ^{[6] [8]}. The Supreme Court has not squarely decided the self‑pardon question, leaving it an open constitutional issue: lower‑court opinions and academic commentary treat self‑pardon as legally dubious and politically fraught, but the absence of a controlling judicial ruling means the constitutional status is unresolved and would likely generate rapid litigation and constitutional crisis if attempted ^{[4] [6]}. Because the Court has not authoritatively endorsed self‑pardon, scholars emphasize that legal consequences—impeachment, criminal indictment, or post‑term prosecution—remain viable checks in practice ^[8].

3. Historical Practice: Successor Pardons Are the Real Precedent

The clearest historical example relevant to pardoning a President is Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon after Nixon left office, which demonstrates the established pathway: a successor President may issue a pardon for actions that occurred during the prior administration once the subject is no longer in office ^[5]. That precedent makes practical and doctrinal sense because the pardon power is prospective and personal to whoever occupies the White House; it also avoids the constitutional and political complications of intra‑term pardons of a sitting President. Government materials, including the Office of the Pardon Attorney, and legal histories treat Ford’s pardon as the operative model for how executive clemency interacts with presidential misconduct—pardons generally occur after a term, not during it—and underscore that the pardon power operates within a political and constitutional ecosystem where succession, not contemporaneous external pardon, resolves criminal exposure ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Impeachment, Federal Limits, and State Criminal Exposure

The constitutional text bars presidential pardons from affecting impeachment, meaning Congress’s remedial tool remains independent: a President cannot use the pardon power to nullify impeachment or removal; removal and disqualification proceed under legislative authority regardless of any clemency claim ^{[1] [4]}. The federal pardon power also covers only federal offenses; state criminal prosecutions lie outside presidential clemency and can proceed while a President is in office unless a state official chooses otherwise, which emphasizes that no single federal pardon remedy covers all legal exposures a President might face ^[2]. Scholars and official commentators emphasize that these structural limits keep the pardon power broad but not unlimited, and they frame the principal accountability mechanisms as impeachment and subsequent prosecution by state or federal authorities after the presidency ^{[1] [6]}.

5. What the Analyses Agree On and Where Politics Matters More Than Law

Across government explanations and scholarly analyses, there is consensus that the pardon power is a Presidential prerogative, that impeachment is excepted, and that successor pardons are the historically validated route to forgiveness for alleged presidential wrongdoing ^{[3] [5] [4]}. Disagreement concentrates on the unresolved constitutional status of a self‑pardon and the practical consequences if one were attempted; those disputes are legal, not textual, and would quickly move from academic debate into high‑stakes litigation and political branches if tested ^{[6] [8]}. Readers should note that the sources cited span official government explanation and legal scholarship with recent commentary up through 2025, and the most important takeaway is that no other actor currently has a clear constitutional power to pardon a sitting President; only the dynamics of succession and future Presidential action provide realistic avenues for clemency ^{[3] [1] [4]}.