As President Joe Biden nears the end of his term, discussions around the potential use of his clemency powers are intensifying. Biden’s administration has already seen a wave of pardons, including for marijuana convictions and military dismissals due to sexual orientation, showcasing a willingness to leverage executive power for what proponents see as social justice. Yet, as the clock ticks towards January 2025, there is a growing chorus urging him to extend these pardons further, targeting individuals embroiled in legal battles that have become political flashpoints.
In particular, the focus intensifies around Biden’s son, Hunter, whose legal troubles concerning federal gun charges and tax issues have raised questions about the President’s potential use of pardons within his family circle. The White House has distanced itself from the notion that Biden would pardon his son, yet as a lame-duck president, Biden faces less political backlash should he choose such a path.
Another critical aspect of this end-of-term clemency debate centers on the legal adversaries President-elect Donald Trump has faced. Under the specter of a returning Trump administration, figures like special counsel Jack Smith could find themselves in the crosshairs. Biden could issue preemptive pardons to shield these individuals from retaliatory legal actions anticipated as part of Trump’s vowed “lawfare.” This potentiality raises profound implications for the justice system and its perceived politicization, a concern voiced by Republicans who argue that the justice system has been weaponized against Trump.
Historic parallels are drawn with the Watergate scandal, suggesting a pardoning of Trump could be seen as a gesture towards healing and unity, reminiscent of Gerald Ford’s controversial pardon of Richard Nixon. Such an act by Biden could significantly alter his legacy, presenting him as a statesman striving to bridge America’s raging political divides despite the evident risk of infuriating members across the political spectrum.
Complicating the narrative further are calls for Biden to pardon whistleblowers such as Julian Assange, whose release would resonate with ongoing public debates about transparency, democracy, and the role of government secrecy. Assange’s proponents argue his actions have contributed significantly to public knowledge, yet he faces severe repercussions under current legal standards. Figures like former Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and Trump’s proposed HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have publicly supported clemency for Assange, illustrating cross-party appeal for a re-evaluation of punitive measures against whistleblowers.
Simultaneously, there is pressure from progressive quarters pushing for broader clemency, aimed at addressing what they view as systemic injustices inherent in the criminal justice system. Representative efforts led by Ayanna Pressley and Jim Clyburn highlight the urgency felt by many on the left to reform antiquated sentencing laws before Biden exits office.
The issue of pardons encapsulates broader ideological battles about justice and power in America. It raises critical questions about the use and potential misuse of executive clemency as a political tool, and what such decisions say about American values. These debates are not merely about individual cases but touch on fundamental disagreements over the future direction of justice in the nation. As Biden’s time in office wanes, the choices he makes will inevitably shape his legacy and the political landscape he leaves behind.
