President Donald Trump is using the pardon power to attempt to erase accountability, reward those who helped him attack the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, and rewrite the history of what happened that day.
These pardons send an unmistakable message: Those who help subvert an election to help President Trump will be rewarded rather than held accountable.
That kind of incentive structure undermines the rule of law and is a clear political signal that encourages future attempts to interfere with the democratic process when it doesn’t serve President Trump’s interests.
Protection for Election Sabotage
Within days of returning to office, President Trump issued blanket pardons to more than 1,500 people charged or convicted in connection with the January 6 insurrection, including individuals who assaulted police officers and used violence to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election results.
But he didn’t stop there.
In November 2025, President Trump issued pardons to dozens of political allies facing state criminal charges for their roles in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Most news reports described the move as symbolic because of their lack of authority. The Constitution is clear: A president’s pardon power extends only to federal crimes, not state prosecutions.
So, what do these pardons symbolize? The answer is deeply troubling. The president is sending a clear message to his supporters ahead of the 2026 and 2028 elections: If you help subvert an election for him, you will be shielded from consequences.
That strategy was on display with President Trump’s December 2025 “pardon” of Tina Peters, the former Colorado county clerk serving a lengthy state prison sentence for tampering with voting equipment to advance his false claims of election fraud.
The president described Peters as an “innocent political prisoner” and purported to pardon her for state crimes — something he has no authority to do.
A New Legal Theory With No Basis in Law
The president’s allies have advanced meritless legal theories claiming that presidential pardons can override state criminal charges. Peters' attorney has even asked a Colorado court to recognize President Trump’s pardon and release her from state prison.
There is no legal support for these claims. State prosecutors derive their authority from state constitutions, and presidential pardons cannot erase state indictments. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized this division of power.
Legally, these pardons change nothing — but that doesn’t mean they don’t matter.
They matter because they attempt to normalize the idea that a president can use the machinery of justice to shield allies and target enemies. They support the narrative President Trump is trying to manufacture: The effort to subvert the 2020 election was not criminal, but courageous.
Regardless of what his allies may say, a pardon cannot change facts, rewrite history or transform a forged document into a genuine one. But the insistence that pardons can — and the repetition of that claim from the highest office in the country — has consequences.
It encourages the public to see January 6 not as a line that must never be crossed again, but as a political dispute in which accountability itself was the real injustice. Moreover, it encourages President Trump’s supporters to subvert future elections.
Replacing the Rule of Law With the Rule of One
Voters have a right to expect that the president will use the powers of the office to serve the American people — not to advance the narrow interests of wealthy special interests or political loyalists.
That principle is especially important when it comes to the pardon power, one of the president’s broadest and least-checked authorities. Clemency is meant to correct injustices and offer mercy for the truly deserving, rather than as a tool for bestowing political favors.
In addition to using the pardon power to reward those who illegally advanced his political interests, President Trump is also abusing the power to pardon those who advanced his financial interests.
Individuals convicted of serious crimes are nonetheless securing clemency after making sizable political donations or supporting the Trump family’s business ventures.
In other instances, President Trump has used those same tools to excuse corrupt public officials who abuse their office for personal or political gain, so long as they pledge loyalty to him and his political agenda.
For example, President Trump pardoned Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Texas, who was accused of accepting $600,000 in bribes from an Azerbaijani oil company and a Mexican bank — and when Cuellar declined to switch parties, the president blasted him for a lack of loyalty.
This strategy fits within a broader pattern. Since the first day of his second administration, President Trump has attempted to dismantle the checks and balances that protect our freedoms and replace the rule of law with the rule of one.
Protecting Future Elections Requires Accountability Today
The legal process must be allowed to move forward. Individuals who attempted to overturn the will of voters in 2020 should face consequences that deter future attempts to subvert elections.
But accountability alone is not enough. We must also recognize the broader danger posed by political messaging that encourages election interference by promising protection from consequences.
If these pardons are allowed to be forgotten, or are dismissed as mere political theater, we risk overlooking the groundwork being laid for future efforts to undermine democratic institutions. Protecting the integrity of our elections requires vigilance — and a clear understanding of how misuse of presidential power can threaten the rule of law.
At Campaign Legal Center, we are committed to defending the rule of law and preserving the checks and balances that prevent any one branch of government — or any one individual — from becoming too powerful.
That’s why, with your support, we will continue to litigate against executive overreach, challenge dangerous legislation and promote solutions that will strengthen our institutions.