In the closing days of Joe Biden’s presidency, his decision to issue preemptive pardons to family members, including his brothers James and Francis, his sister Valerie, and their spouses, has reignited controversy over presidential clemency. Critics have been quick to highlight the hypocrisy, particularly as prominent Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, decried similar actions by Donald Trump in 2020.
Biden’s Pardons and Public Outcry
The Biden pardons, quietly issued in the final days of his administration, were ostensibly meant to protect his relatives from “politically motivated investigations.” Among the pardons was a sweeping clemency for his son Hunter Biden in December 2024, covering over a decade of legal troubles, including tax evasion and gun-related charges. The scope and timing of these pardons have left critics questioning their justification and ethical implications.
Schumer’s 2020 Criticism Comes Full Circle
In 2020, as speculation grew over whether Donald Trump might preemptively pardon his family members, Chuck Schumer, then the Senate Minority Leader, expressed grave concern. Schumer argued that such actions would represent a gross abuse of presidential authority, undermining the credibility of the justice system. Schumer’s rhetoric was part of a broader Democratic effort to criticize Trump’s perceived self-serving use of executive powers.
Fast forward to 2025, and Biden’s actions bear a striking resemblance to the conduct Schumer and others denounced. By leveraging his constitutional authority to grant clemency to his own family, Biden has opened himself—and his party—to accusations of double standards.
What Message Does It Send to Preemptively Pardon Your Own Family?
Preemptively pardoning one’s own family sends a range of troubling messages, both to the public and to the broader legal and political community:
Erosion of Public Trust:
It undermines confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system. By granting clemency to family members, it creates the perception that political elites and their relatives are above the law, enjoying protections unavailable to ordinary citizens.
A Shield Against Accountability:
A preemptive pardon suggests a lack of faith in the legal process, precluding investigations that could determine guilt or innocence. It implies that the president views potential accusations as inherently illegitimate, denying the public the transparency they deserve.
The Appearance of Guilt:
Pardons before charges are even brought may be interpreted as an acknowledgment that wrongdoing occurred or as an attempt to suppress evidence of misconduct. This can damage the reputation of both the individuals pardoned and the president issuing the pardon.
Precedent for Abuse of Power:
It sets a dangerous precedent, normalizing the use of executive clemency to protect personal or familial interests. Future presidents may feel emboldened to use pardons in even broader or more questionable ways, further politicizing the justice system.
Conflict with Ethical Leadership:
Leaders are expected to exemplify accountability and transparency. Pardoning one’s own family contradicts these principles, creating a perception of self-interest over public service.
Partisan Hypocrisy:
If a president or their party criticized similar actions in the past, such a move reeks of hypocrisy, damaging credibility and reinforcing the notion that political affiliation determines what is deemed acceptable or ethical.
Erosion of Accountability for Public Figures:
It suggests that those in power can sidestep consequences while ordinary citizens are held accountable, deepening public cynicism about systemic inequality in governance.
Alyssa Farah Griffin: A “Disgraceful” Legacy
The backlash hasn’t been confined to Republicans. Alyssa Farah Griffin, co-host of The View and a former Trump administration official, called Biden’s pardons “disgraceful.” She argued that the move not only damages Biden’s legacy but also sets a troubling precedent for future administrations. Critics contend that such actions blur the line between justice and political favoritism, undermining public confidence in the presidency.
Toward Transparency and Accountability
Presidential pardons are a powerful constitutional tool, but they are often wielded with minimal transparency. Whether used by Trump, Biden, or any other president, the lack of clear standards invites perceptions of corruption and favoritism. To restore public trust, policymakers must address the clemency process, ensuring it is used to serve justice rather than protect political allies or family members.
Until then, the shadow of hypocrisy will continue to loom large over the Biden presidential pardons, eroding the credibility of those who wield this immense power.
RibotskyInstitute.com 
Leave a comment