Biden Considers Preemptive Pardons for Trump Critics

President Joe Biden’s potential move to issue preemptive pardons has created discussion in political circles. These deliberations have intensified in light of President-elect Donald Trump’s statements about targeting political opponents. Trump’s rhetoric has prompted Biden’s team to consider pardons for individuals such as:

• Former Rep. Liz Cheney
• Sen.-elect Adam Schiff
• Dr. Anthony Fauci
• Gen. Mark Milley

Preemptive pardons are not without precedent. In 1974, Gerald Ford issued a “full, free, and absolute” pardon to Richard Nixon. Biden has also pardoned his son Hunter for alleged misdeeds over an eleven-year span.

The nomination of Kash Patel as Trump’s FBI director has raised concerns. Patel has been open about his intention to investigate Trump’s critics. This has led some Democrats to urge Biden to consider preemptive pardons, while others worry about setting a precedent or implying guilt.

These discussions reflect the concerns of Biden’s aides about potential targeting of perceived adversaries by a future Trump administration. The debate centers on balancing justice with protection against political vengeance while maintaining the integrity of the rule of law.

Potential Recipients of Preemptive Pardons

Figures potentially in line for preemptive pardons include Dr. Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, Sen.-elect Adam Schiff, and former Rep. Liz Cheney. Each has drawn criticism from former President Trump due to their actions during their public service.

• Dr. Fauci: As head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, became a prominent figure in the COVID-19 response. His guidance on vaccines and mask mandates led to accusations of overstepping his role and politicizing public health directives.
• Gen. Milley: Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced criticism for his communications with foreign counterparts during the final days of Trump’s presidency. These actions, intended to maintain global stability, were perceived by some as undermining presidential authority.
• Sen.-elect Schiff: Known for his role in Trump’s first impeachment trial, has been a frequent target of criticism. His investigations into alleged collusion have been viewed by Trump supporters as partisan.
• Former Rep. Cheney: Participation in the investigation of the January 6, 2021 events resulted in her ostracism from the Republican mainstream and made her a target for Trump’s criticism.

These potential pardons raise questions about preserving the republic’s integrity and adhering to the principles established by the Founding Fathers. How do we balance protection of individuals with maintaining the sanctity of our constitutional processes?

Debate Over Preemptive Pardons

The prospect of issuing preemptive pardons has prompted significant debate within the Biden administration and among Democratic allies. Some argue these pardons are essential to safeguard individuals from politically charged prosecutions, while others caution against this approach due to concerns about constitutional integrity and political repercussions.

Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts supports the idea, drawing parallels to President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. He suggests that preemptive pardons may be necessary to maintain national stability and unity.

Senator-elect Adam Schiff adopts a more reserved perspective, expressing concern that granting preemptive pardons might imply guilt or wrongdoing. He emphasizes the strength of legal institutions to withstand political threats.

“I think this is frankly so implausible as not to be worthy of much consideration. I would urge the president not to do that. I think it would seem defensive and unnecessary.”

Republicans have criticized the potential expansion of the presidential pardon power. GOP Representative Michael McCaul of Texas has expressed concerns over a perceived “abuse of the pardon process,” warning of potential precedent-setting for future administrations.

These divergent opinions illuminate the political stakes surrounding preemptive pardons. The decision holds implications beyond individual beneficiaries, touching on broader themes of justice, constitutional integrity, and the handling of political animosities.

Will these pardons protect the republic from vendettas, or do they risk eroding the foundations established by the Founding Fathers to ensure a fair and impartial system of governance? How can we balance the need for protection with the preservation of our constitutional principles?

1. Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)
2. In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890)