Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s recent call to end the presidential pardon has sparked significant conversation among lawmakers. Her stance highlights a growing frustration with how this power has been exercised in recent years. “I’ve been in support of getting rid of a presidential pardon for either party,” Slotkin stated decisively in a post on X. She cited the pardoning of Changpeng Zhao, CEO of the cryptocurrency company Binance, as a glaring example of the problem. “Last week, Donald Trump pardoned the CEO who had invested heavily in President Trump’s family crypto venture,” she pointed out. This move fits into a troubling pattern that has many questioning the validity of the pardon power in today’s political landscape.
Slotkin’s concerns resonate with various members of the Democratic Party, particularly among those in the House of Representatives. Yet, opinions diverge on whether Congress should outright eliminate the power. Rep. Ted Lieu, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, expressed strong agreement with Slotkin’s perspective. “I one thousand percent agree with her,” Lieu remarked, pinpointing the perceived abuse of the pardon power as a serious concern. He reflected a sentiment that questioning the integrity of the system has become essential due to recent actions by both Trump and Biden.
However, views on the future of presidential pardons aren’t uniform. Some lawmakers caution against completely dismantling a system that has historically provided a measure of mercy. Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove emphasized this point, recognizing that past presidents have wielded the power thoughtfully. “I’m not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water,” she remarked. She acknowledged the abnormal political climate, specifically referencing the unpredictability of the current president. Kamlager-Dove argued for a more tempered approach, focusing on accountability for today’s leaders rather than discarding a tool that has previously served a purpose in governance.
This tension reflects a broader dialogue within the party. Many recognize the importance of maintaining the power of clemency, albeit with reform. Rep. Jamie Raskin echoed Kamlager-Dove’s call for analysis of the systemic abuses while also advocating for preserving the ability to grant mercy. “I certainly think we need to analyze the systemic abuses that have been taking place,” he said, highlighting the delicate balance lawmakers face in addressing these issues.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal offered another perspective. While she did not support the outright removal of the pardon power, she expressed interest in limiting its scope. Jayapal noted that any substantial reform would likely require a constitutional amendment, a laborious process that necessitates widespread agreement among lawmakers. “In my mind, it’s about a narrow use,” she stated, indicating her desire for a restrained application of the power.
As officials weigh the future of presidential pardons, they grapple with the original intent of this executive authority. Lieu raised doubts about whether current practices align with the framers’ vision, expressing uncertainty about the role this power plays in modern governance. “Definitely not the role it’s playing now where Donald Trump is pardoning hardened criminals and his friends and allies,” he asserted, emphasizing the deviation from what the founders may have envisioned.
The ongoing conversation about presidential pardons reveals an evolving political landscape. Lawmakers are finding themselves at a crossroads, balancing historical practices with contemporary realities that demand scrutiny and reform. Slotkin’s comments have surfaced a significant concern that resonates across party lines, demanding a reevaluation of how clemency is applied and whether it should be redefined for the future.
"*" indicates required fields
