April 15, 2026
The supreme court needs to put limits on Trump’s use of the pardoning power | Steven Greenhouse
Executive Summary
The article argues that the Supreme Court must impose limits on Donald Trump's extensive use of the presidential pardon power, which has included over 1,800 pardons, many of which undermine democratic principles and ethical standards. Key examples highlight pardons granted to individuals involved in serious crimes, including January 6 insurrectionists and financial fraudsters, often in exchange for political favors or donations. The author contends that Trump's approach to pardoning has deviated from the original constitutional intent, posing risks to the rule of law and encouraging lawlessness. To safeguard democracy, the Supreme Court is urged to reinterpret the pardon power and establish restrictions against abuses that threaten constitutional order.
Stoic Response
Citizens of the Agora,
Today, we gather to confront a matter of profound significance that strikes at the very heart of our democratic principles. In recent times, we have witnessed an alarming trend: the expansive and questionable use of the presidential pardon power, particularly by former President Donald Trump. With over 1,800 pardons granted, many of which favor those implicated in serious crimes—such as insurrectionists from January 6th and financial fraudsters—the sanctity of our rule of law hangs in the balance. The wisdom of our forefathers, articulated by Alexander Hamilton, envisioned this power as one of “scrupulousness and caution.” Yet, what we observe is a stark deviation from this noble intent.
Let us consider the concrete reality: among those pardoned, 175 individuals were charged with using deadly weapons or causing serious injury to law enforcement officers during the insurrection. This is not merely a statistic; it is a clarion call to action! Such actions undermine the very fabric of our democracy and invite lawlessness into our midst. The cardinal virtue of justice demands that we hold our leaders accountable, ensuring that the power entrusted to them is not wielded as a tool for personal gain or favoritism.
Moreover, the ethical implications of these pardons cannot be ignored. Reports suggest that some pardons were granted in exchange for political favors or substantial donations—actions that betray the public trust and erode the moral foundation of our governance. The virtue of temperance reminds us that power must be exercised with restraint and integrity. When leaders use their authority to benefit allies while disregarding the rule of law, we risk fostering a culture of impunity.
I urge you, citizens, to reflect on the implications of this unchecked power. The Supreme Court must act decisively to reinterpret the pardon power, establishing limits that protect our constitutional order. This is not merely a legal issue; it is a moral imperative. We must advocate for a system that safeguards democracy from the caprices of any individual, ensuring that justice prevails over favoritism.
Therefore, I charge each of you—engage in this discourse, raise your voices, and demand accountability from our institutions. Let us not remain passive observers while the pillars of our democracy are threatened. Stand firm in the pursuit of justice, and let us collectively safeguard the virtues that define us as a society. Together, we can ensure that our democracy remains a beacon of hope and integrity for generations to come.
Article Rewritten Through Stoic Lens
Executive Summary
In examining the use of presidential pardons, particularly those issued by Donald Trump, we must approach the matter with a Stoic mindset, focusing on virtue, wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. The power to pardon, as outlined by the framers of the Constitution, was intended to be exercised with prudence and moral integrity. However, the recent application of this power raises important questions about its alignment with these virtues.
The Nature of Pardon Power
The framers of the Constitution, including Alexander Hamilton, envisioned the presidential pardon as a mechanism to promote justice and rectify injustices. It was meant to be wielded with care, reflecting a commitment to the common good. In contrast, the extensive pardons granted by Trump—over 1,800—often appear to deviate from this noble purpose. This deviation invites us to reflect on the nature of virtue and the responsibilities that accompany power.
Control and Responsibility
As Stoics, we recognize that while we cannot control the actions of others, we can control our own responses and judgments. The pardons issued by Trump, including those for individuals involved in serious crimes such as insurrection and financial fraud, compel us to examine the broader implications of such actions. We must ask ourselves: How do these pardons reflect on the virtue of justice?
The Impact of Pardons on Society
The pardons granted to individuals associated with the January 6 insurrection, for example, challenge the very foundations of our democratic principles. These actions can be seen not merely as personal decisions but as reflections of a larger societal ethos. The Stoic philosopher understands that actions have consequences, and the encouragement of lawlessness undermines the social contract that binds us.
The Role of the Supreme Court
In this context, the role of the Supreme Court becomes crucial. While some argue that the president's power to pardon is absolute, it is essential to consider the implications of unchecked power. The Stoic perspective urges us to seek balance and moderation. The Court must contemplate its duty to uphold the rule of law and protect the principles of justice.
The Dangers of Unchecked Power
The potential for abuse of the pardon power raises significant concerns. When pardons are perceived as rewards for political favors or financial contributions, the integrity of our justice system is compromised. This scenario invites us to reflect on the virtue of temperance—how can we ensure that power is not wielded capriciously?
A Call for Reflection and Action
To safeguard democracy and uphold ethical standards, it is imperative for the Supreme Court to reconsider the parameters of the pardon power. This is not merely a legal question but a moral one. The Stoic approach encourages us to act with wisdom and courage in the face of challenges.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the current state of presidential pardons invites a profound examination of virtue, justice, and the responsibilities of power. The Stoic philosopher recognizes that while we cannot control the actions of others, we can strive to uphold our own principles. It is through the lens of virtue that we must assess the implications of these pardons and advocate for a justice system that reflects the highest ethical standards. The Supreme Court's role in this matter is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative—to ensure that the exercise of power aligns with the virtues that sustain our democracy.
Source Body Text
Since returning to office, Donald Trump has issued more than 1,800 pardons – to financial fraudsters, drug kingpins, January 6 insurrectionists and others. Unfortunately, Trump’s pardons don’t begin to conform with Alexander Hamilton’s high-minded vision of how presidents would use pardons. When the US constitution was being written in 1787, Hamilton, a delegate to the constitutional convention, pushed to give presidents a broad pardoning power, saying presidents would use it with “scrupulousness and caution”. But Trump’s use of that power has been anything but scrupulous and cautious. Trump has repeatedly granted pardons that either undermine our democracy or involve flagrant conflicts of interest, sometimes pardoning family members of people who gave him big donations. Because Trump has issued many pardons that the authors of the constitution would never have countenanced, the supreme court – for the sake of preserving our democracy and basic rules of ethics – needs to step up and place some limits on Trump’s unchecked and unprincipled use of the pardon power. This is all the more important since the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Trump has repeatedly promised top administration officials pardons before he leaves office. “I’ll pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval,” the Journal quoted him as saying, in what the White House maintained was a joke. I realize that White House officials and many legal scholars say a president’s power to pardon is absolute and can’t be limited. But something urgently needs to be done to curb Trump’s often dangerous, often unethical use of that power. Take Trump’s pardon of more than 1,500 January 6 rioters – those pardons were an out-and-out assault against our constitution. Those insurrectionists were convicted or charged with mounting an assault against Congress not only to prevent duly elected Joe Biden from taking office but to bulldoze over the constitution’s requirements for an orderly transition of power. Of those pardoned, 175 were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. This was definitely not how the constitution’s framers envisioned the pardon power being used. Many of Trump’s pardons are just plain tawdry. After Paul Walczak’s mother paid $1m to attend a Trump fundraiser, Trump pardoned Walczak, a Florida nursing home executive who had pleaded guilty to tax fraud after stealing over $10m in employee payroll taxes and using that money to buy a $2m yacht. Trump pardoned Walczak just 12 days after a judge had sentenced him to 18 months in prison – the pardon spared Walczak from ever reporting to prison and paying $4.4m in restitution. Last October, Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao, a crypto-billionaire who spent four months in prison after pleading guilty to charges related to money laundering. That pardon, which will probably let Binance resume operations in the US, came after Binance took big and unusual steps to boost the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial crypto company, catapulting its market value from $125m to more than $2.1bn. Trump commuted the 15-year prison sentence of Jason Galanis, who was convicted of defrauding $80m from union pension funds and the Oglala Sioux tribe. Trump hurt union members and the tribe by wiping out the $80m in restitution that Galanis owed them. Trump did this huge favor for Galanis, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, because Galanis had testified in a House inquiry into the Biden family. Trump also pardoned the former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was sentenced to 45 years in prison for helping drug traffickers move hundreds of tons of cocaine to the US. Hernandez won a pardon after he flattered Trump with a letter that addressed him as Your Excellency and said that he, like Trump, had been victimized by Biden’s prosecutors. Trump also commuted the sentence of George Santos, the spectacularly dishonest Long Island congressman, who served just a few months of his seven-year prison sentence for defrauding donors and stealing 11 people’s identities. To explain that pardon, Trump cited Santos’s support of his agenda. There are many more such sordid examples. Trump is using pardons not as a careful tool of mercy, but as a get-out-of-jail-free card to criminals he wants to bless for backing him, flattering him or doing favors for him. “I think Trump has abused the pardon power to an unprecedented degree,” said Liz Oyer, who served as Joe Biden’s pardon attorney, advising him on who deserved pardons. “Trump has totally lost sight of using the pardon power in the public interest. The core rationale for pardons was to give the president a tool to make our justice system fairer by remedying injustice.” Every American should worry about one possible outgrowth of Trump’s profligate pardon practices. As the Wall Street Journal article makes clear, many Trump subordinates and Maga faithful no doubt believe that if they violate the law by following Trump’s orders or political wishes, they won’t have to worry about being prosecuted because Trump will pardon them. That is a recipe for lawlessness and undermining civil order. Let’s not forget that Trump commuted the sentences (one for 18 years, one for 22 years) of several Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were convicted of the serious crime of seditious conspiracy connected to January 6. Those egregious pardons will very possibly embolden other seditious conspiracies against our democracy. It’s easy to imagine that the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, could be charged someday with violating federal law for ordering the military to blow up, rather than interdict, vessels believed to be carrying drugs. But Hegseth knows he hardly need worry because he can be confident that Trump will pardon him. After Trump violated democratic norms by siccing prosecutors on James Comey, Letitia James and Mark Kelly, I worry about scenarios like this: on election day, Trump supporters – inspired by Trump’s lies about Democratic voter fraud – engage in large-scale, illegal voter intimidation in Democratic areas to help Republicans win numerous races, and then Trump pardons them afterwards. If you think that’s outlandish, don’t forget that Trump pardoned Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s adviser John Eastman, the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and 74 others who could face charges for seeking to overturn the 2020 election. To protect our democracy from the most autocratic president in history, it’s time for the supreme court to move away from the notion that the president’s pardon power is plenary and the courts and Congress can’t do anything about it, no matter how much it is misused. The supreme court needs to step up when a president uses pardons in ways that threaten our constitutional order and clash with the provisions and goals of our constitution. Some legal scholars will rush to argue: “No way, we can’t limit the president’s constitutional pardon power.” Here I respond with a warning made by several supreme court justices: the constitution is not a “suicide pact”. After Trump was indicted on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that this was one of the first-ever prosecutions of a president and that it called for a new look at immunity rules. In a truly dangerous ruling that has encouraged Trump’s lawlessness and authoritarianism, Roberts and the court’s rightwing majority issued a decision giving Trump alarmingly broad immunity from prosecution. Trump’s unprecedented and often corrupt use of pardons calls for a new look at pardon rules, and hopefully the justices, unlike in the immunity case, will protect our democracy and the rule of law by placing limits on Trump’s use of the pardon power. (I acknowledge that this will take a little creative constitutional interpretation to help safeguard our democracy.) The supreme court should place limits on unscrupulous Trump pardons. It should prohibit pardons to people when they (or their families or cronies) in essence give bribes to obtain pardons, perhaps in the form of a $1m ticket to a fundraiser or a $1m campaign donation. (I’d suggest prohibiting pardons to anyone who gives more than the $3,500 individual limit to candidates.) The court should also prohibit pardons to people like Changpeng Zhao, who help enrich a president and a president’s family. If the supreme court continues to maintain that the pardon power can’t be limited, that could prove truly perilous to our democracy. It’s hard to deny that Trump’s pardons of over 1,500 insurrectionists and election deniers will embolden more insurrections and election denial that threaten our rule of law and our elections. Trump’s pardons will also encourage more criminals and their families to buy pardons that make a mockery of the rule of law. The supreme court needs to stop turning a blind eye. It needs to step up and stop Trump from using his pardon power as a springboard for scandal and sedition. Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues