The presidential pardon was enshrined in the Constitution as an “act of grace” to correct unjust judicial decisions and align with current public interests. Yet, recent abuses by presidents have exposed a troubling aspect of this constitutional right: instead of serving the public interest, the pardon power has increasingly been wielded for personal and political gain. From pardoning family members to protecting controversial political allies, this unchecked authority undermines the judicial system and threatens the fundamental principle of the separation of powers.
The intended use of the pardon can be seen with President Jimmy Carter’s blanket pardon for Vietnam draft evaders and with President Donald Trump’s posthumous pardon of Susan B. Anthony, a suffragist convicted of voting in the 1872 election. However, in many cases, its broad scope has allowed presidents to reshape the legal consequences of criminal actions without any oversight. Such can be seen in former President Biden’s preemptive pardons for three of his siblings and a pardon of his son following a conviction for illegally buying and possessing a gun in June 2024, in addition to pleading guilty to nine tax-related charges.
Trump, too, issued pardons that prioritized personal gain over fair justice. His first term was marked by personal pardons for long-time allies like Roger Stone, a friend of Trump’s who was convicted of witness tampering and making false statements in the investigation of the 2016 election regarding Russian interference. The beginning of his second term also saw a sweeping array of pardons and sentence reductions for individuals connected to the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. These actions not only shielded many from accountability but also incentivized extremist behavior by signaling that loyalty to the president could secure immunity from prosecution.
The heart of this issue lies in the lack of oversight and accountability. The Constitution grants the president broad clemency powers without requiring any external review or approval, a relic of executive authority inherited from monarchs of a bygone era. However, in today’s democratic society, such unchecked power is both out-of-date and dangerous. When the president effectively becomes the sole arbiter of who is forgiven, it distorts the balance of power that is essential to our government. Allowing a president to unilaterally alter the outcomes of legal proceedings undermines the credibility of the judicial system and erodes public trust in our democratic institutions. Moreover, the arbitrary nature of many pardons suggests that they are less about correcting judicial errors and more about personal benefit. Instead of serving as an act of grace for individuals wronged by a rigid system, pardons have increasingly become tools for rewarding political allies, donors and even family members. This misuse not only creates an uneven playing field but also gives evidence to the perception that the wealthy and connected can escape accountability. As a result, the current system favors a double standard that is both unfair and damaging to the American rule of law.
One possible solution is to introduce meaningful checks on the pardon power without abolishing it entirely. The power to grant clemency can still act as an important emergency backstop against unjust convictions or overly harsh sentences. However, it should be subject to rigorous review and transparency. For instance, an independent pardon board — similar to those used in some states — could be established so that pardons may not be passed without agreement from the board. Such a board would help ensure that pardons are granted based on facts rather than political benefit. This would not only preserve the president’s ability to offer mercy when it is truly warranted, but also safeguard against abuses that serve private interests over the public good.
The core challenge, however, lies in the difficulty of codifying these reforms. Amending the Constitution to restrict the pardon power is virtually impossible as it would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Instead, efforts should focus on limiting the outright power of presidential pardons through targeted congressional legislation, which would only require simple majorities in both the House and Senate. Such a reform would be feasible too, as the bipartisan tendency to misuse it and the frustration both parties have over it presents a unique opportunity to make key changes. Proposals have already been made, such as Rep. Steve Cohen’s joint resolution introduced on Jan. 9 explicitly barring presidents from pardoning themselves, their family members or political allies.
The abuse of presidential pardons symbolizes a broader erosion of checks and balances within our government. When one branch of government wields disproportionate power over matters of criminal justice, the very notion of accountability is compromised. It’s time for lawmakers to step in and rein in this dangerous trend before it further undermines the integrity of our legal system. Limiting the power of presidential pardons is not about diminishing the president’s ability to show mercy — it’s about restoring faith in the principle of equal justice under the law. By ensuring that pardons are granted only after careful review by independent bodies and by prohibiting self-dealing, we can reinforce the system of checks and balances that lies at the heart of American democracy. Only then can we move toward a system where the power to forgive is used to serve justice, not political interests.
