Pardons, Power, and Punishment: The Double Standard in Trump’s Justice Play

By David LaGuerre – 

How Donald Trump’s controversial clemency decisions expose a system driven by loyalty, ego, and a fundamental double standard in justice

In the final years of his presidency, Donald Trump redefined the use of the presidential pardon. While many saw pardons as an act of mercy or an attempt to correct a flawed system, Trump’s clemency decisions painted a starkly different picture. How could a president pardon convicted criminals—many with proven records—yet simultaneously wage a ruthless campaign against individuals based on a tattoo or a photoshopped image of gang affiliation? The answer lies at the intersection of political expediency, personal loyalty, and a psychological profile marked by narcissistic traits.

The Patterns Behind Trump’s Pardons

Who Receives Clemency?

Unlike his predecessors, Trump’s list of pardons often read like a roster of political allies, right-wing activists, and media personalities. His high-profile pardons included:

• Political and Legal Allies:
  Figures like Michael Flynn, his former National Security Advisor, and Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor accused of corruption, were granted clemency. Legal expert Jack Goldsmith noted, “Most of Trump’s pardons had personal or political motivations, bypassing traditional vetting processes.”

• Controversial Celebrities and Business Figures:
  Reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, convicted of multimillion-dollar fraud, and even cryptocurrency pioneer Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road, were among those who received presidential mercy. These pardons have raised the question: Do personal loyalty and media influence outweigh due process and accountability in the realm of justice?

• The Case for Political Expediency:
  Trump’s reliance on personal recommendations, rather than following the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s just procedures, reflects not just a break from tradition but a shift toward rewarding loyalty. As legal scholars have observed, such an approach undermines public trust in the system intended to safeguard impartial justice.

The Numbers Speak

Statistically, Trump’s use of clemency starkly contrasted with past administrations. During his first term, he issued 144 pardons and 94 commutations. By May 2025, that number surged to over 1,700, including nearly 1,500 pardons for January 6 Capitol riot defendants alone. For comparison:

• Barack Obama issued 1,927 clemency acts, primarily addressing nonviolent drug offenses.
• George W. Bush granted around 200 acts over his two terms.
• Bill Clinton’s controversial pardons, including that of Marc Rich, numbered in the mid-hundreds.

This divergence not only illustrates the heightened scope of Trump’s clemency but also signals a shift toward using pardons as tools of political reward rather than instruments of justice.

The Other Face of Trump’s Justice: Rigorous Punishment for Others

The Case of the “Tattooed Criminal”

In stark contrast to his leniency toward political allies, Trump’s administration showed an uncompromising stance against those it deemed outside his inner circle. One striking example involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident deported to El Salvador on the basis of his alleged MS-13 affiliation. In Garcia’s case, the evidence was dubious at best.

• Questionable Evidence:
  Trump pointed to tattoos on Garcia’s hands—a collection of symbols including a marijuana leaf, a smiley face, a crucifix, and a skull—as proof of gang membership. Yet, respected gang experts assert that true MS-13 members typically have explicit markings such as “MS” or “13,” which Garcia lacked. Furthermore, a photoshopped image that superimposed “MS-13” onto his hand was widely debunked by fact-checkers.

• Legal and Ethical Concerns:
  Legal expert commentary criticized the deportation as a serious due process violation. When challenged by multiple media outlets, Trump dismissed the corrections as “fake news,” reinforcing the administration’s narrative that only those outside his favored circle deserved harsh punishment.

This double standard—pardoning convicted criminals with personal or political value and harshly penalizing those whose perceived crimes were based on manipulated or inconclusive evidence—sends a troubling message about the nature of justice when wielded as a political tool.

Unraveling the Psychological Underpinnings

Narcissism in the Oval Office

What drives a leader to extend mercy to allies while relentlessly pursuing alleged wrongdoers with questionable evidence? Many psychological experts believe the answer lies in narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), characterized by grandiosity, a desperate need for admiration, and a marked lack of empathy.

• Echoes of Narcissistic Traits:
  Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner once described Trump as “remarkably narcissistic.” Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist and his niece, has repeatedly argued that his decisions—pardon power included—are driven by an insatiable need to assert his dominance and surround himself with unwavering supporters.
  Dan P. McAdams, a noted psychology professor, remarked, “Trump lives in the combative moment, always seeking personal victories at the expense of enduring justice.”

• The Role of Ego and Loyalty:
  In Trump’s political world, clemency isn’t about rehabilitation or mercy but rather a currency of loyalty. Pardoning trusted allies and punishing those without personal value becomes a theatrical performance that reinforces his control over his base while projecting strength to his critics. This selective use of pardons highlights a fundamental contradiction—a system where justice is not blind but skewed in favor of personal connection and strategic advantage.

Legal Experts Weigh In

Legal scholars have long argued that while the presidential pardon is a constitutional power, its abuse can undermine the rule of law. Critics emphasize that:

• The traditional use of pardons should be to correct systemic injustices or to offer mercy in cases of disproportionate sentencing.
• Trump’s pattern—punishing some with draconian force while offering leniency to those who serve his interests—reveals a dangerous politicization of a power meant to be used sparingly and with great care.
• “Using pardon power as a tool of personal and political retribution erodes public trust in the very institutions designed to uphold impartial justice,” explains Jack Goldsmith, a legal scholar from Harvard Law.

The Broader Implications for American Democracy

A System at Risk

Trump’s record of pardons and his contrasting approach toward punishment have sparked a broader debate about the integrity of American justice. When clemency becomes synonymous with political loyalty rather than as a mechanism of mercy, the public begins to lose faith in the fairness of the legal system.

• Erosion of Trust:
  By selectively pardoning criminals based on personal connections while demonizing marginalized individuals for alleged gang affiliations, the administration has blurred the lines between justice, retribution, and political expediency.

• Call for Reform:
  With mounting legal expert critiques and public outcry, there is a growing call for reforms such as increased oversight of the pardon process. Proposals include subjecting presidential pardons to congressional review or reinstituting the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s oversight to ensure transparency and fairness.

A Call to Action

For citizens who believe in a system where justice is applied equally, Trump’s legacy serves as a cautionary tale. It is a rallying cry for accountability and the need to demand reforms that prioritize fairness over favoritism. As voters and activists, it is imperative to hold leaders accountable and safeguard the delicate balance between mercy and justice.

Justice, Loyalty, and the Future of American Clemency

Donald Trump’s pardon record is more than a list of high-profile names—it is a reflection of a fundamental shift in the use of executive power. His selective approach, marked by deep loyalty to political allies and a harsh stance against those deemed outsiders, reveals a justice system where personal gain eclipses impartiality.

It is clear that a president who pardons convicted criminals while targeting those with tattoos or manipulated evidence is wielding power not for the greater good, but for personal and political advantage. Citizens must demand transparency, accountability, and reforms that ensure favoritism does not distort justice. Now is the time to speak out, get informed, and work toward a judicial system that values fairness above all.

Take action today—stay informed and join the call for justice reforms.