the issues: pardons
In the context of the 2024 presidential race, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have different records and approaches when it comes to the use of presidential pardons. A presidential pardon is a powerful tool granted by the U.S. Constitution, allowing the president to forgive federal crimes, essentially wiping away a person’s legal liability for offenses committed. The pardon power has been historically used to correct perceived injustices, as well as for political purposes. An examination of how Harris and Trump have engaged with the idea of pardons, either directly or indirectly, can provide insight into their leadership styles and governing philosophies.
Kamala Harris: No Presidential Pardon Record, but a Focus on Criminal Justice Reform
As of 2024, Kamala Harris has not served as president and therefore has no personal record of issuing pardons. However, her career as California’s Attorney General and her positions as a U.S. Senator and Vice President give insight into her views on justice, clemency, and reforming the criminal justice system, which are related to the use of pardons.
Background in Criminal Justice: Harris served as the Attorney General of California from 2011 to 2017, where she had the authority to make decisions regarding clemency and parole recommendations, though this role is different from the president’s ability to grant pardons. During this time, Harris was known for taking a cautious approach to criminal justice reform, often balancing her progressive policy positions with maintaining a more traditional law enforcement stance. For instance, she was initially criticized for not supporting the full legalization of marijuana, though she later shifted her stance.
During her tenure as Attorney General, Harris worked on various criminal justice reforms, including efforts to reduce recidivism and support rehabilitation programs. However, she also faced criticism for opposing some measures that would have reduced sentences for non-violent offenders or eliminated cash bail more swiftly. This demonstrates a complex, often centrist approach to criminal justice—seeking to balance reform with maintaining order.
Advocacy for Clemency and Criminal Justice Reform: While Harris has no personal record of issuing pardons, she has been a vocal supporter of criminal justice reforms at the national level, particularly during her time as a U.S. Senator and Vice President. She has consistently advocated for changes that address the racial and economic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system. As Vice President, Harris supported the Biden administration’s efforts to address issues of mass incarceration, reduce mandatory minimum sentences, and provide clemency for non-violent drug offenders.
The Biden administration has issued some pardons and commutations, particularly focusing on drug-related offenses. While Harris has not been directly responsible for these decisions, her support for broader criminal justice reform indicates that she favors the use of pardons as a tool for correcting systemic injustices. For instance, in 2022, President Biden pardoned thousands of individuals convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law, a move that Harris likely supported given her vocal advocacy for marijuana decriminalization and other criminal justice reforms.
Potential Future Approach to Pardons: If elected president, it is likely that Harris would approach the pardon power in a way that aligns with her broader criminal justice reform agenda. This could involve using pardons to address racial disparities in sentencing, correct wrongful convictions, or reduce the number of people incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. However, based on her cautious approach to criminal justice as California’s Attorney General, she may not use the pardon power as expansively as some progressive advocates might hope. Instead, she may focus on carefully selected cases that align with broader policy goals.
Donald Trump: Extensive Use of Presidential Pardons, Often with a Focus on Allies and Controversial Figures
During his presidency (2017-2021), Donald Trump made significant use of the pardon power, often in ways that attracted public attention and controversy. His use of pardons was marked by a departure from traditional norms, as he frequently bypassed the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which usually reviews and recommends pardon candidates based on established criteria.
Pardons of Political Allies and High-Profile Individuals:
One of the defining characteristics of Trump’s use of pardons was his tendency to grant clemency to political allies and individuals connected to his administration or campaign. For instance:
Roger Stone: Trump commuted the sentence of his longtime adviser Roger Stone, who had been convicted of lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Michael Flynn: Trump pardoned his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador.
Paul Manafort: Trump also pardoned his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who had been convicted of financial crimes related to his work in Ukraine.
These pardons were widely criticized as acts of political favoritism, with many seeing them as efforts to protect individuals who had been loyal to Trump during his presidency and legal investigations. Critics argued that these pardons undermined the rule of law by forgiving criminal behavior tied to corruption and obstruction of justice. However, Trump and his supporters defended these pardons as correcting what they saw as unfair prosecutions, particularly in cases linked to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference.
Pardons of Controversial Figures: Trump also issued pardons to several high-profile individuals from outside the political realm, many of whom had been convicted of serious crimes. Some of the most controversial pardons included:
Joe Arpaio: In 2017, Trump pardoned former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had been convicted of contempt of court for defying a court order to stop racially profiling Latinos. Arpaio was a staunch supporter of Trump’s tough stance on immigration, and his pardon was seen as a signal that Trump would not shy away from protecting those who aligned with his views.
Dinesh D’Souza: In 2018, Trump pardoned conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza, who had been convicted of campaign finance violations. Trump framed the pardon as correcting what he saw as a politically motivated prosecution of a prominent conservative voice.
Charles Kushner: Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner. Charles Kushner had been convicted of tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions. This pardon was criticized for its apparent personal connection to Trump’s family.
These pardons reflect Trump’s willingness to use the pardon power to benefit individuals with personal or political connections to him, often disregarding traditional processes of review and recommendation.
Military and Law Enforcement Pardons:
Trump also used his pardon power to intervene in cases involving members of the military and law enforcement who had been convicted of war crimes or other misconduct. For instance:
Edward Gallagher: Trump pardoned Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, who had been convicted of posing with the corpse of a prisoner in Iraq and was accused of other serious war crimes. While Gallagher’s case was highly divisive, Trump framed the pardon as supporting the military and rejecting what he viewed as unfair treatment of soldiers.
Critics of these military pardons argued that they undermined military discipline and the U.S. military justice system by excusing misconduct. However, Trump defended these actions as protecting American soldiers who had been wrongfully punished for doing their jobs in difficult combat situations.
Potential Future Approach to Pardons:
If Trump were to serve another term as president, it is likely that he would continue to use the pardon power in ways that reflect his personal and political priorities. Based on his past behavior, Trump may issue pardons to individuals who have remained loyal to him or who he believes have been unfairly targeted by the legal system. It is also possible that he would use the pardon power to protect individuals involved in the investigations into his post-presidential legal troubles, such as the January 6 investigation or his business dealings.
Key Differences in Their Approach to Pardons
Scope and Focus:
Kamala Harris: Harris has not issued pardons but supports using clemency as part of broader criminal justice reform, particularly for non-violent offenders and those impacted by racial disparities. Her approach is likely to focus on correcting systemic injustices rather than issuing pardons to political allies or controversial figures.
Donald Trump: Trump has used the pardon power frequently, often to benefit political allies, controversial public figures, and members of the military. His pardons have been more focused on individuals with personal or political connections to him, bypassing the traditional review process.
Transparency and Process:
Kamala Harris: While Harris has no record of issuing pardons, her focus on criminal justice reform suggests that she would likely follow a more traditional and transparent process, relying on recommendations from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Donald Trump: Trump largely bypassed the traditional pardon process, issuing pardons directly without following the usual recommendations from the Department of Justice. His approach was more personal and less bound by established norms.
Use of Pardons for Political or Personal Gain:
Kamala Harris: Harris has not demonstrated any tendency to use the pardon power for personal or political gain. Her public statements suggest that she views pardons as a tool for achieving justice, particularly for marginalized communities.
Donald Trump: Trump’s use of pardons has been widely criticized for serving personal and political interests. His pardons of political allies, family members, and supporters have raised concerns about the abuse of executive power for self-serving.