Key Takeaways:

• A former DOJ pardon attorney calls Trump’s use of pardon power unprecedented and harmful.
• High-profile pardons include a billionaire crypto founder, a disgraced congressman, and a corrupt sheriff.
• Trump’s public admission that he didn’t know one pardon recipient stunned legal experts.
• Observers see a pattern: Trump pardons people who reflect parts of himself.

Why Trump pardons are shocking

A former pardon attorney at the Department of Justice says she is stunned by President Donald Trump’s recent use of the pardon power. Liz Oyer, the first ex-public defender to serve as a DOJ pardon attorney, spoke out on a podcast. She argued that Trump is using pardons in ways never seen before and harming the rule of law.

During an episode of “Bulwark Takes,” Sam Stein, managing editor of The Bulwark, asked Oyer about Trump’s most surprising pardons. In particular, Stein called out the pardon of Chengpeng Zhao, founder of the Binance crypto exchange. He said he was “gobsmacked” that Trump admitted on television he didn’t even know who Zhao was.

Oyer described that moment as “absolutely stunning.” She noted that Zhao had poured billions into Trump’s family crypto venture. Despite clear conflicts, Trump awarded him a pardon. Then on national TV, Trump claimed he had no idea who Zhao was. For Oyer, this was a bizarre twist that defied all norms.

Surprising high-profile cases

First, the Binance founder. Zhao faces U.S. charges for operating an unlicensed crypto exchange and money laundering. Normally, such cases would not merit a pardon. Yet he won clemency after backing a Trump-linked project.

Next, George Santos. The former New York congressman pleaded guilty to multiple fraud charges. He admitted to lying in campaign finance reports and pocketing donor money. Even so, Trump pardoned him. Santos’s pardon drew public outcry for rewarding dishonesty.

Then, Scott Jenkins. This Virginia sheriff plotted to smuggle marijuana across state lines. He faced conspiracy charges and corruption counts. He earned a ten-year prison sentence. Despite that record, Jenkins joined the growing list of Trump pardon recipients.

All three cases share one trait. Oyer pointed out that Trump pardons people in whom he sees something of himself. In each case, she said, Trump rewards loyalty, money, or chaos—qualities he values.

Why these pardons matter

First, the rule of law suffers. Pardons exist to correct clear injustices or spare the innocent. However, Trump pardons often ignore legal standards. Consequently, they blur lines between personal gain and public service.

Second, public trust erodes. When presidents pardon friends or donors, citizens feel the system is rigged. Therefore, confidence in justice and fairness drops. Moreover, other branches of government may lose faith in checks and balances.

Third, norms weaken. Every president sets precedents. If one commander-in-chief uses pardons for personal benefit, successors may do the same. As a result, the pardon power risks becoming a tool for cronyism instead of mercy.

Voices of concern

Legal experts are speaking out. They warn that unchecked pardon power can fuel corruption. Some note that Congress might need new rules to limit broad clemency. Others believe the courts could carve out stricter guidelines on who qualifies for a pardon.

Oyer’s perspective carries weight. She worked inside the DOJ pardon office and defended indigent clients. Now she sees her former workplace enabling favors for the powerful. Her unique background shows how unusual these moves by Trump really are.

Transitioning to a path forward

First, transparency must improve. The pardon office should disclose pardon applications and reasons. That would allow public review and reduce secret deals.

Second, clear criteria are essential. Lawmakers could define eligibility rules for pardons. For example, they might restrict pardons for cases involving self-dealing or personal donations.

Third, oversight can increase. A bipartisan review board could vet pardon requests. Such a panel would help ensure decisions serve justice, not personal interest.

Finally, civil society should stay engaged. Journalists, watchdog groups, and voters can highlight abuses. By shining a light, they can pressure leaders to respect the law.

Conclusion

In the end, Trump pardons have sparked fierce debate. Some view them as rightful acts of clemency. Others, like Liz Oyer, see them as powerful symbols of misuse. Above all, these actions raise key questions about fairness, rule of law, and the future of presidential power. As debates rage, Americans will watch closely to see if any reforms stick. For now, the controversy over Trump pardons continues to roil Washington and the nation.

FAQs

What is a presidential pardon?

A pardon is a presidential act that forgives a federal crime. It wipes out or reduces punishment. However, it does not erase the conviction itself.

Can Congress limit presidential pardons?

Currently, the Constitution gives pardon power only to presidents. But Congress could pass new laws to require more transparency. It might also set guidelines for when pardons apply.

Why do critics call these pardons unprecedented?

Critics note that past presidents pardoned allies only under rare circumstances. They followed strict merit rules. In contrast, these recent pardons seem tied to loyalty, money, or favors.

How could the pardon process become more transparent?

Experts suggest publishing detailed pardon applications. They also recommend an independent review board. Such steps could help the public understand each decision.