Trump’s pardons may backfire, former federal prosecutors warn

Critics, including some Atlanta-based former federal prosecutors, say it appears Trump is handing out favors to friends and political allies without regard for the usual considerations.

“What this yields is a system where, if you have the right political beliefs and enough money, you can buy your way out of justice,” said Lynsey Barron, whose work for the DOJ between 2015 and 2019 included reviewing pardon applications. “And that is a notion that would send shivers down any former federal prosecutor’s spine.”

A president’s power to pardon is almost unlimited

The U.S. Constitution gives presidents almost unlimited ability to pardon or grant clemency to criminal defendants, and criticism of how that power has been used over the years is not new.

Joe Biden caught flak for pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, after saying he wouldn’t. On Bill Clinton’s last day as president, he pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose ex-wife had made large contributions to the Democratic Party. Former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, called Rich’s pardon “disgraceful.”

Gerald Ford was widely criticized for pardoning former President Richard Nixon.

Barron said Trump’s pardon of the Chrisleys, who were found guilty of defrauding banks out of $36 million and hiding millions of dollars in earnings to avoid paying taxes, is possibly the most alarming since Rich’s pardon in 2001.

“It is certainly the most recent one since the Marc Rich pardon that has attracted this much attention and that appears to be just a pure political favor,” she said.

Trump said he does not know Todd and Julie Chrisley but heard they had received “pretty harsh treatment.” The couple was sentenced by a federal judge in Atlanta who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

The couple’s freedom campaign was led by their daughter, Savannah Chrisley, who visited Trump’s home in Florida, spoke at the Republican National Convention in July 2024 and stopped by the White House in February 2025. The Chrisleys claimed they were prosecuted because of their conservative views and that U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross, who presided over their trial, is biased against them.

It was Byung “BJay” Pak, a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, who indicted the Chrisleys and their former accountant, Peter Tarantino, in August 2019.

Attorney John Ghose, who worked as a federal prosecutor under Pak at the time but was not involved in the Chrisley case, said he believes the couple’s prosecution was not motivated by their political or conservative beliefs.

“It seems very undisciplined,” Ghose said of Trump’s choice of pardon recipients. “Which is scary.”

The Chrisleys’ convictions were upheld in June 2024 by the conservative-leaning 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, to which Trump has appointed six judges.

Trump appears to take a different approach with pardons

While Obama and Biden appeared to largely grant pardons to correct perceived injustices in historic sentencing practices and for humanitarian reasons, Trump seems to be basing many of his pardons on political motivations, Ghose said.

He cited the pardoning of the Jan. 6 defendants and Trump’s reasoning that their prosecutions under the Biden administration were excessive. Ghose said Trump appears to be stretching that theme beyond what makes sense factually.

“The Chrisleys are probably the best example because they had no connection to the Republican Party that I’m aware of or the president or the current administration,” he said. “They’re just conservatives.”

Harrison Fields of the White House press team said Trump is “always pleased to give well-deserving Americans a second chance, especially those who have been unfairly targeted and overly prosecuted by an unjust justice system.” Fields said the Chrisleys’ sentences were “far too harsh.”

Criminal defense lawyer Scott Grubman, who used to prosecute white-collar federal cases in South Georgia, said the common thread among people recently pardoned by Trump appears to be their expressions of support for him.

“This does feel different,” Grubman said of Trump’s pardon decisions compared to those of other presidents. “It does feel to me more of a loyalty test. Now it seems the litmus test is: Are you loyal to Trump? Do you support Trump? And have you given Trump money?”

Barron said Trump’s pardoning of the Chrisleys undercuts the notion that everyone is treated equally under the law. She warned of a continued pattern of such pardons.

“It is really disturbing,” Barron said. “It sends the message that justice is a commodity that can be bought.”

Barron said the DOJ has an office dedicated to reviewing pardon applications, which typically aren’t looked at until the applicant has served their sentence and been out of custody for several years. She said priority is usually given to people who admit their guilt, take responsibility for their actions and show they are trying to do better.

The Chrisleys did not admit guilt and had years left in prison, Barron noted. She said a president’s power to pardon people should be reserved for those who deserve it.

“This is President Trump using that power to reward his friends,” she said. “When a president uses it to reward their friend, it’s bribery by a different name.”

Too many pardons could hinder federal law enforcement

Federal investigators and prosecutors may react negatively to a perceived overuse of the presidential pardon power, Ghose and other lawyers who worked in the DOJ said.

Attorney David Chaiken, who spent almost a decade as a federal prosecutor in Georgia, said pardons like those given to the Chrisleys may exacerbate what he calls a recruiting and retention crisis in federal law enforcement.

Chaiken said federal investigators and prosecutors can be deterred when people are pardoned under false claims of a weaponized justice system or rogue prosecution after being found guilty by a dozen jurors.

“The best and brightest will not want to work there,” Chaiken said of the DOJ and FBI. “And those already working there will be less inclined to work long hours for low pay to bring the most challenging cases.”

Ghose said he’s had conversations with friends who still work in the DOJ and are concerned about devoting resources to prosecuting people who may be pardoned later, including those with significant financial assets or political connections.

“What is the motivation as a federal prosecutor or an FBI agent to put in years of work knowing that this very well may be erased by a pardon afterwards, in light of the connections or the financial resources of the targets?” he said.

Grubman said his advice as a defense lawyer has changed in response to Trump’s recent pardons and the growing perception that funding a pardon request might make more sense than pursuing an appeal in court. He said he spoke with a former client after the Chrisleys were pardoned about whether the former client, who was convicted of felony fraud, should go that route.

“I said to him, ‘Look, to the extent you have any money left, I would strongly consider finding someone who could help you through the current pardon process and doing what you need to do to get on the administration’s radar,’” Grubman said.

Barron and Ghose warned about the potential for a president to exchange pardons for favors.

“The fear with a president like this is that he could use the pardon as a quid pro quo,” Barron said. “Use it, especially with powerful people like the Chrisleys, in exchange for some future thing that they’re going to do for him or his family or his businesses.”