Origins and background The concept of governments having the authority to provide relief from criminal punishment has deep and broader historical roots, including in ancient Jewish, Greek, and Roman legal principles and practice. The U.S. Constitution's pardon power originated from longstanding English tradition, The first known prerogative of mercy was issued by
King Ine of Wessex (688–725), and during the reign of King
Henry VIII (1509–1547), it was formally declared by
parliament as an exclusive right of the
Crown. By the 18th century, the power had been restricted by parliament, enabling it to address potential abuses, but retained its broad application, including in the
American colonies. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were directly influenced by the English practice.
Alexander Hamilton defended the pardon power in
The Federalist Papers, particularly in
Federalist No. 74, where he argued that such a power should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed to ensure easy access to exceptions in favour of unfortunate guilt. Hamilton also argued that placing power solely with the President would lead to its most beneficial exercise, as a single person would be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of the government than a body of men who might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. neither the
Virginia nor
New Jersey plan, which concerned the structure of the new government, addressed pardons. Rather, most discussions and disagreements centered on how and where presidential pardons would be exercised. Hamilton proposed amendments to the Virginia Plan that would vest the pardon power in an Executive authority that could be exercised over all offences except Treason, with a pardon for treason requiring approval by the Senate. The first report of the
Committee of Detail proposed allowing the president to grant "reprieves and pardons", with the only exception being that a pardon would not be pleadable in bar of an impeachment, which was similar to English restrictions on royal pardons.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania countered that if the President were himself involved in treasonous conduct, he could be
impeached. Responding to Randolph's motion,
James Madison expressed that the Senate should be consulted for pardons that concerned treason;
Roger Sherman submitted a separate proposal requiring Senate consent for all pardons, while making presidential reprieves applicable only until the subsequent Senate session. Randolph's motion was ultimately defeated by an 8–2 vote (with one divided),
Modern process All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the president, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the
Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the
United States Department of Justice. The number of pardons and reprieves granted has varied from administration to administration. Fewer pardons have been granted since
World War II. A federal pardon can be issued prior to the start of a legal case or inquiry, prior to any indictments being issued, for unspecified offenses, and prior to or after a conviction for a federal crime. President Gerald R. Ford's broad federal pardon of former president Richard M. Nixon in 1974 for "all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974" is a notable example of a fixed-period federal pardon that came prior to any indictments being issued and that covered unspecified federal offenses that may or may not have been committed. The Justice Department normally requires that anyone filing a petition for a pardon wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. However, this policy does not bind or restrict the president's power. While clemency may be granted without the filing of a formal request, in most cases the Office of the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.
Limitations Federal pardons issued by the president apply only to federal crimes; they do not apply to state or local crimes or to private civil
lawsuits. Pardons for state crimes are handled by governors or a state pardon board.
Acceptance by the recipient In
United States v. Wilson (1833), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a pardon can be rejected by the intended recipient and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. In that case, George Wilson was convicted of robbing the
US Mail and was sentenced to death. Because of his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by President
Andrew Jackson, but Wilson refused the pardon and the Supreme Court held that his rejection was valid and the court could not force a pardon upon him; and consequently the pardon must be introduced to the court by "plea, motion, or otherwise" to be considered as a point of fact and evidence. According to Associate Justice Joseph McKenna, writing the majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case
Burdick v. United States, a pardon is "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it."
Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University, states that presidents sometimes (albeit rarely) grant pardons on the basis of innocence, and argues that if a president issues a pardon because they think an individual is innocent, then accepting that pardon would not be an admission of guilt.
Residual effects of convictions A presidential pardon restores various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and may lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, but it does not erase or expunge the record of the conviction itself. Therefore, a person who is granted a pardon must still disclose any convictions on any form where such information is required although the person may also disclose the fact that a pardon was received. Also, as most
civil disabilities arising from a criminal conviction, such as
loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, they may be removed only by state action. The 1974 memo laid out a scenario in which, under the
Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the president could declare himself unable to perform his duties and could appoint the vice president as acting president. The acting president could then pardon the president and "thereafter the president could either resign or resume the duties of his office." The issue arose again in 1998, during the
impeachment of President Bill Clinton. On July 22, 2017, President
Donald Trump tweeted, "While all agree the U.S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us. FAKE NEWS", prompting a series of news articles and online commentary regarding the president's ability to pardon relatives, aides, and possibly even himself in relation to the
2017 Special Counsel investigation, which ultimately concluded President Donald Trump could not be indicted at the time.
The New York Times reported that during Trump's closing days in office he told aides he was considering pardoning himself.
Constitutionality of self-pardon Common arguments against self-pardons include the themes of self-judging and self-dealing, the unjust nature of the president being above the law, violations of the public trust, the inclusion of the word "grant" in the relevant clause (one cannot grant something to oneself), the definition of "pardon" (because one cannot grant forgiveness to oneself), and the inadequacy of other safeguards such as political consequences. However, such arguments have been disputed, and since the Supreme Court has issued constitutional rulings that affirmed the president's "unlimited" pardon power, a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision on a self-pardon would be required to settle the constitutionality of a self-pardon. while
Philip Bobbitt and other legal scholars have suggested that self-pardons would be precluded by the requirement that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in
Article II, Section III or by the
Due Process Clauses of the
5th Amendment and the
14th Amendment. The Impeachment Disqualification Clause states "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Controversial use The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many
Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. Critics such as the Anti-Federalists have argued that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. In the 18th century, George Washington granted the first high-profile federal pardon to leaders of the
Whiskey Rebellion on his final day in office. In the 19th century,
Andrew Johnson controversially issued sweeping
pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the
American Civil War. In the 20th century,
Gerald Ford pardoned former president
Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the
Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon, and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. Other publicly controversial uses of the pardon power include
Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era
draft dodgers on his second day in office, January 21, 1977;
George H. W. Bush's
pardons of 75 people, including six
Reagan administration officials accused or convicted in connection with the
Iran–Contra affair; and
Bill Clinton's commutation of sentences for 16 members of
FALN in 1999. In the 21st century, Clinton's pardons of
140 people on his last day in office, January 20, 2001, including billionaire fugitive
Marc Rich and his own half-brother,
Roger Clinton, were heavily criticized. President Donald Trump issued his first pardon to former Arizona sheriff
Joe Arpaio on August 25, 2017; Arpaio had been convicted of criminal contempt in federal court. The
pardon of Arpaio was relatively unusual in being issued early in Trump's presidency. It was met with widespread criticism from political opponents. On November 25, 2020, Trump announced, via Twitter, that he had pardoned his former National Security Advisor, retired General
Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to one count of
making false statements to the FBI, an offense which prompted Trump to fire Flynn as his national security advisor 23 days after taking office. On December 23, 2020, Trump pardoned 26 friends and allies, including his longtime ally
Roger Stone, former campaign chairman
Paul Manafort, and
Charles Kushner, his son-in-law's father. On December 1, 2024, during his
lame-duck period,
President Joe Biden issued a "full and unconditional pardon" to his son
Hunter Biden who had been convicted on federal gun and tax evasion
charges. The pardon also included any potential federal crimes that Hunter Biden may have committed "from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024". This was a reversal of his previous promises that he would not use his clemency powers for his son. In his statement, he said that Hunter had been "selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted." On January 20, 2025, mere hours before his administration ended, President Joe Biden pardoned former
NIAID director
Anthony Fauci, retired general
Mark Milley, and
members of the House Select Committee that investigated the
January 6 United States Capitol attack of 2021. In his last minutes in office, Biden also pardoned an additional five members of his
family consisting of his younger brother
James Biden and his wife Sara, younger brother Francis, as well as his younger sister
Valerie Biden Owens and her husband John Owens. Biden stated that these final pardons were done to protect the pardoned individuals from retribution by the incoming Trump administration, not because the individuals had done anything wrong. Also on January 20, 2025, newly inaugurated president
Donald Trump issued
a mass pardon to 1,600 persons accused and convicted of illegal actions on January 6, without input from the U.S.
Office of the Pardon Attorney. According to the April 7, 2025, testimony of Elizabeth Oyer, Pardon Attorney at the time, "That's not something we were asked to do in that context, and, in fact, it's not something that the Office as of the time of my departure had been asked to do at all in the context of clemency grants by this administration." Although presidents are not mandated to consult with the Pardon Attorney when issuing clemency, the violent nature of many January 6 indictments, coupled with the criminal histories of those accused and convicted, has led the U.S.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary to formally question the Department of Justice, the latter being under the direction of
Pamela Bondi, to ask if the department is violating its own guidelines—and failing to ensure public safety—by facilitating these pardons. In mid-March 2025, President Trump challenged the validity of some of predecessor Joe Biden's pardons, claiming they were invalidated because he allegedly used
autopen.
Allegations of monetized clemency during Donald Trump's presidency During the final months of President Donald Trump's first term, multiple news outlets reported allegations and investigations concerning attempts to obtain presidential clemency through political contributions or paid access to individuals claiming influence over the White House clemency process.
Allegations involving Rudy Giuliani and a $2 million figure In May 2023,
The Washington Post reported that a lawsuit filed by Noelle Dunphy (a former associate of Rudy Giuliani) alleged Giuliani told her he was "selling pardons for $2 million" and that he and Trump would split the proceeds. The same reporting noted Giuliani's attorneys said he denied the allegations described in the lawsuit.
Department of Justice "bribery-for-pardon" investigation In December 2020, Reuters reported that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating a potential crime related to funneling money to the White House in exchange for a presidential pardon, after Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell partially unsealed a heavily redacted court opinion describing what she called a "bribery-for-pardon" investigation.
Summary of status as reported Reporting on the above matters described them as allegations and/or investigations; the identities of the relevant subjects were not fully public in the unsealed materials, and outlets noted no public charging announcement tied to the redacted "bribery-for-pardon" inquiry at the time of the reporting. == Symbolic use ==