Pardons, allies & accountability

Trump’s January 20, 2025 proclamation commuted specified January 6 defendants’ sentences, pardoned other people convicted of covered offenses and ordered the attorney general to pursue dismissal of pending prosecutions. It was broad clemency, not a case-by-case judicial reconsideration of evidence.[1]

The beneficiaries included people convicted of assaulting police, as AP documented, alongside people whose conduct involved nonviolent misdemeanor offenses. Describing the whole group as violent is inaccurate; describing every beneficiary as a peaceful protester is also inaccurate. Each defendant’s actual conviction and conduct matter.[2]

A presidential pardon forgives covered federal offenses through a constitutional power. It does not establish that videos, admissions or trial findings were fabricated, and a sentence commutation is different from a pardon. Critics can object to rewarding political violence without claiming that using the pardon power itself was automatically a new crime.[1]

DOJ’s grants register lists a pardon for Binance founder Changpeng Zhao in October 2025. The covered federal offense was failure to maintain an effective anti-money-laundering program, for which he had received a four-month prison sentence and a $50 million fine. Calling him personally convicted of every offense attributed to the Binance corporation blurs distinct defendants and pleas.[1]

The ethical controversy includes Binance’s business links to World Liberty Financial’s USD1 stablecoin, described in congressional oversight correspondence before the pardon. It is reasonable to investigate whether commercial relationships affected access or clemency decisions. A business relationship followed by a pardon does not independently prove an explicit purchase agreement.[2]

The same standard should apply to other donors and political allies: establish the original offense, exact relief, contribution or commercial flow, decision process and evidence of exchange. A pardon record establishes the official act. A donation record establishes a payment. A claim that one bought the other needs additional evidence.