Honestly, the presidential pardon is kinda the closest thing we have to a "get out of jail free" card in the real world. No judge can overrule it. No Congress can vote it down. It’s a relic of royal prerogative, tucked neatly into Article II of the Constitution, and boy, have presidents used it to stir the pot. When we talk about the most controversial presidential pardons, we aren’t just talking about legal paperwork. We're talking about national outrages, late-night "midnight" signatures, and the type of political fallout that ends careers.
It's one of those powers that feels like a bug in the system. One man (or one day, woman) can simply erase a federal crime with a flourish of ink. Sometimes it’s an act of mercy for someone caught in a harsh sentencing trap. Other times? It looks a whole lot like a "thank you" to a donor or a cover-up for a political ally.
The Pardon That Probably Cost Gerald Ford the Presidency
If you’re looking for the granddaddy of all controversies, you’ve gotta start with Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon. It was September 8, 1974. The country was still reeling from the Watergate scandal. Nixon had resigned just a month earlier, the only president ever to do so, leaving the nation in a state of absolute exhausted cynicism.
Then Ford stepped to the mic.
He granted Nixon a "full, free, and absolute pardon" for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while in office. Notice that wording? Nixon hadn't even been charged with a crime yet. Ford argued he wanted to end the "long national nightmare," but the public wasn't buying the closure. They wanted a trial. They wanted accountability.
Ford's approval rating didn't just drop; it fell off a cliff, plummeting about 20 points almost overnight. Many historians, and even Ford himself in later years, admitted that this single act was likely why he lost the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter. People felt like the "fix" was in. It created a precedent that’s still debated today: does a pardon heal the country, or does it just prove that the powerful play by different rules?
The "Midnight" Scandal: Bill Clinton and Marc Rich
Fast forward to January 20, 2001. Most people are packing boxes or watching the inauguration coverage. Bill Clinton, however, was busy signing 140 pardons on his way out the door. One name stood out like a sore thumb: Marc Rich.
📖 Related: Trump Approval Rating State Map: Why the Red-Blue Divide is Moving
Rich wasn't your average white-collar criminal. He was a billionaire commodities trader who had fled to Switzerland in the 80s to avoid being prosecuted for massive tax evasion and—get this—illegally trading oil with Iran during the hostage crisis. He was literally on the FBI's Most Wanted list. He hadn't spent a single day in a U.S. prison because he was a fugitive.
So why pardon him?
Well, the optics were terrible. Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library foundation. Even Democrats were furious. Representative Barney Frank called it "contemptuous." It looked like the pardon power was for sale. Clinton later wrote a long op-ed in the New York Times trying to explain it, citing "legal and foreign policy" reasons, but for many, the Marc Rich case remains the gold standard for "midnight pardon" sketchiness.
George H.W. Bush and the Iran-Contra "Cover-Up"
Then you have the Christmas Eve pardons of 1992. George H.W. Bush had just lost his re-election bid. Before heading out, he pardoned six people involved in the Iran-Contra affair, including former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.
The timing was... suspicious, to put it mildly.
Weinberger was scheduled to go to trial in just a few weeks. If that trial had happened, Bush himself might have been called to the stand to testify about what he knew when he was Vice President. By pardoning the "big fish," Bush essentially killed the investigation. The Independent Counsel, Lawrence Walsh, was livid. He basically accused Bush of completing the "Iran-Contra cover-up." It’s a classic example of how a president can use the pardon power to protect not just their friends, but potentially their own legacy.
👉 See also: Ukraine War Map May 2025: Why the Frontlines Aren't Moving Like You Think
The Modern Era: Trump’s "Unconventional" Approach
We can’t talk about the most controversial presidential pardons without looking at the 2020s. Donald Trump basically flipped the traditional pardon process on its head. Usually, there’s this long, boring process through the Department of Justice where lawyers vet candidates. Trump largely ignored that.
He leaned into the "political persecution" narrative. He pardoned figures like:
- Joe Arpaio: The Arizona sheriff convicted of criminal contempt for defying a court order regarding racial profiling.
- Scooter Libby: The former Cheney aide involved in the CIA leak scandal.
- Charles Kushner: His own son-in-law’s father, who had pleaded guilty to tax evasion and witness tampering.
But the real shockwaves came in 2025. Upon returning to office, his first act was a blanket pardon for roughly 1,500 people involved in the January 6th Capitol attack. It was unprecedented. Critics called it a frontal assault on the rule of law, while supporters saw it as a necessary act of "reconciliation" for what they viewed as politically motivated prosecutions.
The Hunter Biden Pardon: A Father’s Final Act
In late 2024, Joe Biden added his own name to the list of controversial moves. For months, he’d told the press—and the American people—that he wouldn't pardon his son, Hunter. But after Hunter was convicted on federal gun and tax charges, the "father" part of Joe Biden seemingly won out over the "president" part.
The backlash was instant. Critics called it a betrayal of his promise to restore the "soul of the nation" and keep the DOJ independent. It put him in a weirdly similar camp as Trump—using the pardon power for someone in his inner circle. It’s a reminder that regardless of the party, the temptation to use this "royal" power for personal or political reasons is almost impossible for any president to resist.
Why Does This Power Even Exist?
You might be wondering: Why don't we just get rid of it?
✨ Don't miss: Percentage of Women That Voted for Trump: What Really Happened
Alexander Hamilton actually argued for the pardon power in the Federalist Papers. He thought that in times of "insurrection or rebellion," a well-timed pardon could calm the waters better than any court case. Basically, it’s a safety valve. Sometimes the law is too rigid, and the president needs to apply mercy to keep the country from tearing itself apart.
The problem is that "mercy" is in the eye of the beholder. One person’s "act of healing" is another person’s "obstruction of justice."
Actionable Insights: How to Track the Pardon Power
If you're interested in how this power is being used right now, don't just wait for the news cycle to tell you. You can actually see the data yourself.
- Check the DOJ’s Office of the Pardon Attorney: They keep a public database of all clemency grants. It’s surprisingly transparent if you know where to look.
- Distinguish between a Pardon and a Commutation: This is a big one. A pardon wipes the slate clean. A commutation just shortens the sentence but keeps the conviction on the record.
- Watch the "Lame Duck" Period: History shows that the most controversial moves happen between Election Day and Inauguration. If you want to see the pen in action, that’s the time to keep your eyes peeled.
The pardon power is likely always going to be messy. It’s the one part of our government where a single person gets to play God with the legal system. As long as we have presidents, we’re going to have people who think they’re using that power for good—and a whole lot of other people who think they're doing the exact opposite.
To stay informed on the latest executive actions, you should regularly monitor the Federal Register or use non-partisan tracking tools like the Brennan Center for Justice's clemency tracker. Knowing the difference between a routine act of mercy and a "political" pardon is the first step in understanding how our justice system really functions at the highest levels.