By Clara Matiello 
Photo credit: Bill Clack/CQ Roll Call
On January 6th, 2021, our nation witnessed what is regarded by some as the biggest contemporary attack on democracy since the Civil War (1861-1865). Roughly 2,500 people broke in and entered the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. During the attack, various offices of Congress members and the House Speaker were vandalized, police officers were assaulted, and the violence led to the death of 5 people, including civilians and law enforcement officers. This resulted in the arrest of more than 1,583 people from all 50 states. After multiple requests were made by both President Donald Trump and then-President-elect Joe Biden pleading with the protestors to stop the violence, at around 6 p.m. that evening, Capitol police finished clearing the grounds from any protestors.
When President Trump returned to power in January of 2025, he issued presidential pardons for more than 1,500 of those convicted for their roles in the attack, including violent protestors. Some political figures have expressed concerns regarding the January 6th pardons, the presidential power itself, and what it means for the future of American Democracy. Presidential pardons have been issued in every administration since The Ford Administration (1974-1977), and there are limitations to them. Presidential pardons can only apply to federal offenses, cannot apply to any future lawbreaking acts, cannot overturn civil consequences, and cannot apply in case of impeachment. A pardon does restore civil rights such as the right to hold public office, the right to serve on a jury, and the right to vote in some cases. However, even after receiving a pardon, the offense is not removed from one’s criminal record.
Of those sentenced, President Trump has granted a full, unconditional pardon to all individuals involved, including 169 individuals who pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers. Fourteen of the apprehended protestors got their sentences commuted instead of pardoned, which means they will be discharged from federal prison, but their civil rights will not be restored as they would with a pardon. All fourteen were members of the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers, two extremist organizations that have previously marched with White Supremacist groups and have been charged with sedition.
While politicians like former Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, a Republican nominated for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, showed public support for Trump’s decision to pardon Jan. 6th protesters, other political figures, such as former Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi, called the pardons an “outrageous insult to our justice system.” Several members of the Democratic party showed their discontent regarding the president’s decision. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, for example, has banned those pardoned from holding state jobs. On the Republican side, figures such as North Carolina’s Senator Thom Tillis also expressed disapproval. Senator Tillis has vocalized his disagreement with the pardoning of violent offenders, going so far as to express his discontent with the president’s pardons at the confirmation hearing of Attorney General Pam Bondi.
While President Trump has claimed Article II gives him “the right to do whatever I want,” that’s not entirely true. Presidential pardons are subject to the system of checks and balances laid out in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. This system serves to prevent one branch of government, in this case, the executive branch, from becoming too powerful. An example includes the process of impeachment through which Congress has the power to remove a president from the office for high crimes and misdemeanors. The pardons issued by President Trump in January are not the only controversial presidential pardons we have witnessed in American history. In 2001, President Clinton granted a presidential pardon to his brother Roger Clinton for cocaine possession and drug trafficking. At the end of his term in 2024, President Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden for three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses, even when he had previously signaled he would not do so. Both pardons drew controversy as the presidential power was used for personal interests.
The pardons issued by President Trump for the January 6th rioters have sparked intense debate over their implications for American democracy. While some view the pardons as a political victory and a defense of those who believed the election was stolen, others see them as an attack on the justice system and a dangerous disregard for constitutional law. The controversy highlights deep divisions within the nation and raises important questions about the balance of power, the integrity of the electoral process, and the future of democratic norms. Ultimately, presidential pardons will continue to be a part of this administration and all others to come and will continue to be a powerful yet often debated executive power.