Congress investigating whether Trump clemency recipients got favorable treatment
Congressional Democrats on Thursday sent letters to more than a dozen clemency recipients investigating whether Trump granted them favorable treatment through financial contributions or intermediaries.
Objective Facts
On Thursday, California Reps. Dave Min and Raul Ruiz, as well as Vermont Sen. Peter Welch, sent letters to more than a dozen recipients of executive clemency seeking to unearth how they may have received favorable treatment from Mr. Trump or his advisers "through intermediaries, financial contributions, or other forms of influence." Among the pardons being probed by lawmakers are those granted to cryptocurrency billionaire Changpeng Zhao, who pleaded guilty to money laundering; nursing home operator Joseph Schwartz, who was convicted of tax crimes; and entrepreneur Trevor Milton, sentenced to four years in prison in 2023 after being convicted of lying to investors. It came after Milton and his wife donated at least $3 million to Mr. Trump's 2024 campaign and other political groups in his orbit. The DOJ traditionally handles pardons and commutations but its former pardon attorney, Liz Oyer, previously told CBS News that the Trump administration "appears to be working around" the agency rather than with it "to vet and review applications for pardons." Because Democrats are in the minority in both the House and the Senate, they lack subpoena power and can only request cooperation from the pardon recipients.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Democratic Reps. Dave Min and Raul Ruiz and Vermont Sen. Peter Welch launched their investigation by sending letters Thursday to clemency recipients, with Rep. Min telling CBS News that the ability to "get around the justice system" after conviction "gets to the heart of what is wrong with America right now under this administration." In a joint statement, Min and Welch argued that "Executive clemency has historically been understood as an act of grace exercised in the interest of justice and the public welfare, but it cannot become a tool for political favoritism, corruption, or pay-to-play dealings," adding that "At a moment when Americans are already losing faith in our institutions, Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight and ensure that no one, including a sitting President, is above accountability." Senator Peter Welch characterized the clemency actions as an "abuse of the presidential pardon" that has "let criminals walk free and deprived victims of hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution, with little to no explanation." Democratic lawmakers cited an analysis from California Governor Gavin Newsom's office that found the president's actions nullified almost $2 billion in recovered money from Medicare and tax fraud. Left-leaning coverage from outlets like MSNBC's MS NOW and The New Republic emphasizes the pattern of favorable treatment correlating with donations and family business ties, particularly highlighting the Binance-Trump family crypto partnership and Milton's campaign donations preceding his March 2025 pardon. The left largely omits discussion of Trump's constitutional authority to grant clemency without Democratic input and downplays the fact that no prosecutable "quid pro quo" has been established despite the investigations.
Right-Leaning Perspective
When confronted with the Democratic investigation, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt denied any impropriety in Trump's clemency decisions, asserting that anyone "spending money to lobby for pardons is foolishly wasting their money" and that the administration maintains a "robust pardon review process." White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told The Hill that Trump "exercised his constitutional authority" in issuing the pardons and commutations, emphasizing that the process includes "the White House Counsel, the Department of Justice, and ultimately the President as the final decider." When Trump reportedly joked about pardoning "everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval Office," Leavitt dismissed the reporting by telling The Wall Street Journal it "should learn to take a joke" before asserting the president's pardon power "is absolute." The White House also criticized former President Biden for pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, and other family members before leaving office, with Jackson pointing to Biden's use of an autopen to issue some pardons. Conservative framing emphasizes Trump's unquestionable constitutional authority, the existence of a formal review process involving both White House Counsel and Justice Department, and Biden's more controversial clemency grants. Right-leaning outlets and administration officials notably omit detailed discussion of the specific pattern of donations preceding pardons or the scale of restitution eliminated, and do not directly address the evidence of lobbying fees paid by clemency seekers.
Deep Dive
Trump fired the Justice Department's pardon attorney Liz Oyer in March 2025 and installed political loyalist Ed Martin in the role, who described the rationale for granting pardons as "No MAGA left behind." An El País investigation documented the emergence of a "flourishing industry" of pardon-seekers in Washington, with lobbying firms disclosing nearly $5.2 million in clemency-related revenue in 2025 — approximately eight times the amount disclosed in 2024 for similar efforts directed at President Biden. This suggests that regardless of whether donations directly cause pardons, a clear market has emerged around accessing Trump's clemency process. While the pardon power is considered constitutionally absolute and the clemency process has long suffered from opacity and conflicts of interest, Trump's approach has intensified the problem by building what observers describe as a "parallel network of mercy led by political allies" outside traditional Justice Department channels. Notably, Trump has faced virtually no criticism from fellow Republicans for his pardons and commutations, in contrast to past presidents who faced partisan scrutiny. Democrats currently lack subpoena power but intend to prioritize the clemency pipeline as a top oversight area if they regain majorities in November's midterm elections. The central factual question—whether donations caused pardons or merely coincided with them—remains genuinely unresolved, as no admissible evidence of explicit quid pro quo has emerged in the partial record available to minority Democrats requesting information.