![[2025] 10 Most Controversial Trump Policies That Still Impact Us Today](https://beastbulletin.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/e13268d7-57ff-43f1-ae97-7303b9be746e-75x75.png "[2025] 10 Most Controversial Trump Policies That Still Impact Us Today")
Joe Biden has made history in his final presidential hours by issuing a record number of pardons and commutations. Dr. Anthony Fauci emerges as the most prominent figure among those granted executive clemency.
The recipients don’t currently face any criminal charges. Biden took this preemptive step to protect them from future prosecution. His protective shield covers not just Fauci but also retired General Mark Milley and members of the January 6 investigation committee. They might face criminal prosecution if Trump returns to office.
This latest round of pardons aligns with Biden’s track record on clemency. He previously commuted sentences for nearly 2,500 people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. The most important aspect of these new pardons is their preventive nature. Biden aims to protect public servants from what he calls politically motivated prosecutions.
Understanding Preemptive Pardons: Biden’s Historic Decision
Image Source: The New York Times
Presidential preemptive pardons are not used often. They go way beyond the reach and influence of regular pardons given after conviction. The Supreme Court’s landmark 1866 decision in Ex parte Garland made it clear that presidents can grant pardons “at any time after an offense’s commission”.
These pardons have broad yet bounded constitutional limits. They work only for federal offenses. Presidents cannot use them for state crimes or civil claims. The Supreme Court has made it clear that no president can pardon future criminal acts.
History shows how presidents have used these pardons strategically:
- President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974 for Watergate-related offenses
- President Jimmy Carter gave a blanket pardon to Vietnam draft dodgers in 1977
- President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger in 1992 before his Iran-Contra trial
Biden made this decision based on what he calls “exceptional circumstances”. He stressed that these pardons don’t mean anyone did anything wrong. So, legal experts see this as a “protective shield” against possible politically driven prosecutions.
The Supreme Court has always maintained that Congress can’t limit the president’s pardon power through laws. They call it a “benign prerogative of mercy”. All the same, using pardons to block a future president’s actions shows a fundamental change in how presidents use this constitutional power.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Pardon Explained
Image Source: KPBS
Dr. Anthony Fauci led an impressive career that lasted almost four decades as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He advised seven U.S. presidents during his tenure. Biden’s pardon looks to protect Fauci from politically driven investigations instead of admitting any wrongdoing.
Fauci and former President Trump’s relationship worsened by a lot during the pandemic. Trump called Fauci “the king of flip-flops” and “a disaster”. Republican lawmakers later put Fauci under intense scrutiny about his pandemic response role and NIH funding choices.
Fauci faced several major challenges during his time:
- He got credible death threats that led to two arrests
- He went through 14 hours of congressional investigations over two days
- He dealt with public backlash over mask mandates and pandemic policies
Fauci’s January 2024 testimony gave an explanation about pandemic response measures. He backed every travel restriction from the Trump administration and admitted that vaccine mandates might increase future hesitancy.
Biden issued the pardon as Trump’s allies suggested prosecuting Fauci over his COVID-19 pandemic management. The president stressed these protections would help public servants who did their jobs faithfully. The pardon protects against what Biden calls “baseless and politically motivated investigations” that could hurt reputations and finances.
General Mark Milley’s Preemptive Protection
Image Source: Los Angeles Times
No source text provided to rewrite.
Jan. 6 Committee Members’ Collective Pardon
Image Source: FOX 32 Chicago
The January 6 committee members have shown different reactions to Biden’s preemptive pardons. Rep. Pete Aguilar’s original stance suggested pardons weren’t needed since the committee “didn’t do anything wrong”. The committee chairman Bennie Thompson ended up accepting the protective measure after Trump made explicit threats of retribution.
Security challenges plagued the committee’s work. Several staff members faced direct threats:
- Marcus Childress and James Sasso got hate mail after their work emails became public
- Sandeep Prasanna needed police protection while teaching
- Chairman Thompson’s security detail continues due to ongoing threats
Trump’s statement on “Meet the Press” claiming committee members “should go to jail” made these threats worse. Biden’s pardon now protects not just committee members but also includes their staff and police officers who testified.
The protection covers key figures like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Adam Schiff, and Zoe Lofgren. Of course, some members, including Rep. Lofgren, worried about these pardons setting a precedent. Biden stressed that accepting these pardons doesn’t mean admitting guilt.
These pardons want to protect public servants from what Biden calls “baseless and politically motivated investigations.” Such investigations could harm reputations and finances, even when people acted properly. This protection recognizes the committee’s substantial work – they interviewed over 1,000 witnesses and created an 814-page final report.
Impact and Implications of Biden’s Pardons
Image Source: ABC News – The Walt Disney Company
Biden’s unprecedented use of preemptive pardons has sparked important constitutional questions. Legal scholars stress that the pardon power remains broad, yet using it to shield against future prosecutions represents a dramatic change in presidential authority.
The pardons create several key implications for American democracy:
- Set a precedent for future administrations to issue protective pardons
- Risk normalizing the use of pardons as political tools
- Create potential for misuse of executive power
- Raise questions about congressional oversight effectiveness
Democrats have expressed their concerns about this precedent. Colorado Governor Jared Polis voiced his disappointment and said that putting family ahead of country could damage Biden’s reputation. These pardons could reshape how future presidents use their clemency powers.
These changes reach beyond political lines. Constitutional experts warn that without Fifth Amendment protection, congressional Republicans could subpoena pardon beneficiaries and create potential perjury traps. This situation questions the balance between executive authority and legislative oversight.
Representative Jamie Raskin defended the pardons by comparing them to Trump’s promise to pardon hundreds of January 6 defendants, despite acknowledging the risks. Legal experts maintain that these pardons, though controversial, fall within the president’s constitutional authority.
This decision brings up broader concerns about selective prosecution and how law enforcement powers serve political purposes. NYU law professor Rachel Barkow explains that high-profile pardons can shape public perception of the justice system and suggest different rules exist for politically connected individuals.
Comparison Table
| Aspect | Understanding Preemptive Pardons | Dr. Fauci’s Pardon | General Milley’s Protection | Jan. 6 Committee Pardons | Effect and Implications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Goal | Shield against politically driven prosecutions | Safety from future political investigations | Not mentioned in this piece | Safety from retaliation and political investigations | Creates precedent for pardons as protective tools |
| The Core Team | Past examples: Nixon, Vietnam draft dodgers, Caspar Weinberger | Dr. Anthony Fauci, former NIAID director | General Mark Milley | Committee members, staff, testifying police officers, including Cheney, Kinzinger, Schiff, Lofgren | N/A |
| Biggest Problems | Only covers federal offenses, excludes state crimes or future conduct | Death threats, 14-hour congressional investigations, public criticism over pandemic policies | Not mentioned in this piece | Staff faced targeted threats, hate mail, needed police protection | Pardons could become political tools, questions about executive power |
| Notable Reactions | Supreme Court sees it as “benign prerogative of mercy” | Biden stressed no wrongdoing | Not mentioned in this piece | Mixed responses – some members resisted at first, Thompson accepted due to threats | Democrats raise concerns, including Gov. Jared Polis |
| Legal/Constitutional Effects | Congress cannot limit presidential pardon power | Safeguards against prosecution over COVID-19 response | Not mentioned in this piece | Protects all committee-related actions | Questions arise about executive authority versus legislative oversight |
Conclusion
Presidential pardons serve as powerful tools in our constitutional framework. Biden’s strategic use of preemptive pardons has fundamentally changed how executive authority works. His protective measures for Dr. Fauci, General Milley, and January 6 Committee members show mounting worries about politically driven prosecutions in our divided political world.
Legal experts continue to debate what these pardons mean in the long run. The immediate effects are crystal clear – the core team of public servants now has protection against possible revenge. This unprecedented action raises valid questions about the limits of executive power and sets new standards for future administrations.
Constitutional scholars highlight three main points. These pardons show how presidential clemency powers keep expanding. They reveal the friction between executive authority and legislative oversight. The pardons also emphasize the challenge of protecting public servants from political attacks.
These pardons will reshape future debates about presidential power and democratic protections. We should see them as responses to new challenges in American governance rather than political moves. Such protective measures could become crucial to preserve institutional integrity and shield public servants who face threats while doing their jobs.
Discussion about this post