Presidential Clemency: Biden vs. Trump on Justice and Due Process
Presidential Clemency, Due Process, and Justice for All
Presidential clemency is a core constitutional power where mercy, accountability, and the rule of law must all be considered. The recent use of clemency by Joe Biden and Donald Trump highlights two distinct approaches to this power and its meaning for American justice. Both presidents exercised clemency for individuals personally connected to them, raising questions about impartiality. However, the sharpest contrast lies in how they utilized mass clemency for different purposes and consequences. When these actions are carefully examined, a clearer picture emerges of how each presidency either strengthened or weakened the ideal of “justice for all.”
Individual Clemency: Impartiality Concerns
Joe Biden’s Pardon of Hunter Biden
Biden’s most controversial individual clemency action was the pardon granted to his son, Hunter Biden. Hunter had been convicted on federal gun and tax charges following a complete criminal process, including a jury verdict and extensive evidentiary review. Josh Barro argues that Hunter received special treatment that most people in his situation would not get. For example, he was helped in paying his owed taxes, which kept him from facing penalties that regular people would likely receive. Barro also notes that Biden had already claimed he would not pardon his son, and his change of mind suggested he understood it would go against the idea of fair and equal justice. The pardon effectively canceled a lawful conviction delivered through proper judicial channels. In the realm of individual clemency, Biden’s decision undermined due process by protecting someone closely tied to him.
Donald Trump’s Politically Motivated Pardons
Trump’s individual clemency decisions showed a different but equally concerning pattern. During his presidency, Trump frequently issued pardons to individuals with personal or political connections, such as:
- Joe Arpaio
- Dinesh D’Souza
- Steve Bannon
- Charles Kushner
A report in the Wall Street Journal about Changpeng Zhao further demonstrates this pattern: Zhao had pleaded guilty to serious anti–money laundering violations, yet reportedly received a presidential pardon shortly after becoming financially intertwined with a Trump-linked crypto venture. Several commentators described this as creating the appearance that clemency could be obtained through private influence or strategic alliances. Reports on Trump’s controversial pardons show that many beneficiaries either supported Trump politically or were valuable to him in some way. In these cases, clemency functioned less as a tool of mercy and more as a form of political reward, reducing public confidence in how legal outcomes are applied.
Mass Clemency: Policy Goals and Systemic Impact
Biden’s Focus on Sentencing Reform and Equity
Beyond individual cases, the sharpest contrast between the two presidents appears in their mass clemency actions. Biden granted 4,245 acts of clemency during his tenure—the highest number in modern history—according to a Pew Research analysis. Most of these were commutations for non-violent drug offenders or individuals placed on home confinement during the pandemic. Biden’s public statements emphasized correcting sentencing disparities and offering second chances to people who demonstrated rehabilitation. His commutation of basically all federal death-row sentences except for terrorism cases showed his belief that certain forms of punishment required reconsideration.
These actions show that the purpose of Biden’s mass clemency was to address systemic inequities that had accumulated over decades, and not to relieve political allies or change the fate of specific cases for strategic reasons. As a policy choice, its goal was to create fairness in punishment and mitigate excessive or uneven sentencing practices.
Trump’s Blanket Pardons for January 6th Offenders
Trump’s mass clemency actions moved in a fundamentally different direction. On his first day back in office in 2025, he issued a blanket pardon for nearly all individuals convicted for their involvement in the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Reports from the BBC and The Hill document that this included violent offenders who had been convicted of serious crimes. Examples include:
- David Dempsey (assaulting police officers)
- Julian Khater (using chemical spray)
- Shane Jenkins (breaking windows)
- Christopher Worrell (attacking law enforcement)
- Thomas Webster (attacking law enforcement with weapons)
Many had received lengthy sentences after full criminal trials. Trump’s proclamation not only freed those already convicted but also effectively nullified the largest federal criminal investigation in U.S. history. Law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, condemned the move for showing leniency toward individuals who committed violence against officers. Kevin Williamson commented that crimes targeting the public order—especially attempts to undermine democratic processes—threaten the integrity of the justice system itself. Trump’s mass pardons therefore removed accountability from individuals whose actions were directed at undermining lawful government procedures, rather than correcting any recognized injustice in their prosecutions.
Conclusion: Clemency and the Ideal of Equal Justice
After examining the evidence, one conclusion becomes clear: although both presidents used clemency in ways that reflected personal connections, their mass clemency decisions had dramatically different implications for “justice for all.”
Biden’s large-scale commutations concentrated on the reform of sentencing practices and addressing disparities that had existed for some time, aligning clemency with broader goals of fairness and rehabilitation. Trump’s blanket pardons erased legitimate convictions for political violence, weakened public confidence in the courts, and relieved offenders who had acted against the constitutional process itself. As a result, Biden’s clemency actions better support the principles of due process and equal justice, while Trump’s mass pardons deviate significantly from those principles.