Beyond Mercy: Politically Motivated Attacks, Ed Martin, the “Weaponization” Narrative, and the Future of Presidential Pardons

I. Introduction: A Pardon Attorney’s Pledge and a Looming Constitutional Question

The landscape of presidential power and its enduring customs faced a significant tremor with the appointment of Ed Martin as the U.S. Pardon Attorney under President Donald Trump. Almost immediately upon assuming his new responsibilities, Martin issued a controversial declaration: he intends to review all pardons issued by former President Joe Biden to ensure they were “lawfully authorized”.¹ This announcement, delivered in his capacity as both Pardon Attorney and the head of a newly formed “Weaponization Working Group” within the Department of Justice ¹, signals a potentially radical departure from the traditionally more circumscribed and bureaucratic role of the Pardon Attorney.

This pronouncement creates an immediate and palpable tension. The presidential pardon power, enshrined in the Constitution, is historically understood as a final act.³ Legal scholars overwhelmingly concur that once a pardon is granted and delivered, there is no established constitutional or statutory mechanism for a subsequent administration to overturn or revoke it.⁶ Martin’s proposed review, therefore, pits a politically appointed official’s agenda against a deeply entrenched principle of executive clemency. The Office of the Pardon Attorney has historically functioned to assist the sitting president in the exercise of clemency, primarily by reviewing applications and making recommendations.⁹ The notion of this office undertaking a review of a former president’s pardons to determine their “lawful authorization” is not a documented historical function and suggests a redefinition of its role from advisory to investigatory, with potential implications for the separation of powers.

BEYOND THE BALLOT: MARIONWATCH INVESTIGATES THE SHADOW WAR OF POLITICAL CHARACTER ASSASSINATIONS –

The very framing of this review under the ambiguous banner of “lawful authorization” is noteworthy. While the Constitution clearly delineates the boundaries of the pardon power—it applies to federal offenses and excludes cases of impeachment ⁴—the term “unlawfully authorized” lacks a standard legal definition for challenging a pardon post-issuance beyond these explicit constitutional constraints. Legal experts maintain the finality of pardons ⁷, and Martin himself has acknowledged the pardon power as “plenary” ¹, suggesting it is absolute and complete. This inherent contradiction implies that the “review” may be less about established legal recourse and more about political scrutiny, potentially aiming to delegitimize pardons deemed politically sensitive. Such an initiative, if pursued, could establish a troubling precedent, inviting future administrations to systematically re-evaluate and attempt to undermine the executive actions of their predecessors, thereby injecting further instability and politicization into matters previously considered settled.

Marion Ethics in Question: Attorney VanBibber Faces Barrage of Charges—Falsehoods, Sexual Misconduct, and Legal Neglect Detailed

This investigative article will dissect the complex profile of Ed Martin, explore the constitutional and historical underpinnings of presidential clemency, scrutinize former President Joe Biden’s pardon record, and critically analyze the profound legal, political, and institutional ramifications of Martin’s unprecedented proposed review, particularly in light of his dual role and the broader “weaponization” narrative emanating from the current administration.

II. Ed Martin: The Controversial Steward of Clemency and “Weaponization”

Ed Martin’s career trajectory, marked by staunch conservative activism and a series of controversial appointments, provides crucial context for his current role and pronouncements. Before his recent Justice Department appointments, Martin was known as a former Missouri Republican Party Chairman and later as the head of Phyllis Schlafly’s influential conservative organization, the Eagle Forum.¹¹ This background firmly establishes his deep ideological commitments. Notably, his resume featured limited direct prosecutorial experience; one report indicated he had “never worked as a prosecutor or tried a case before Trump appointed him in January”.¹¹ This lack of traditional credentials for high-level Department of Justice positions became a significant point of contention during his earlier nomination.

Indeed, Martin’s path to becoming Pardon Attorney was paved by a notably fraught attempt to secure the position of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. President Trump ultimately withdrew Martin’s nomination for this prominent prosecutorial role due to mounting bipartisan concerns and a clear lack of sufficient support in the Senate, with Republican Senator Thom Tillis publicly stating his opposition.² The criticisms leveled against Martin were numerous and serious. They included concerns about his “modest legal experience and divisive politics”.¹¹ His vocal support for individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol riot was a major flashpoint; he was identified as a “leading figure in Trump’s ‘Stop the Steal’ movement,” spoke at a rally in Washington on the eve of the riot, and subsequently represented several January 6th defendants.¹¹ During his brief tenure as acting U.S. Attorney for D.C., he reportedly fired or demoted subordinates who had worked on politically sensitive cases, including some related to January 6th.¹¹ Further controversy arose from his initial failure to disclose over 150 appearances on Russian state-funded media outlets RT and Sputnik ¹¹, and from provocative social media posts, such as one where he referred to U.S. Attorneys as “Trump’s lawyers”.¹³

Following the collapse of his U.S. Attorney nomination, President Trump appointed Martin to dual roles within the Justice Department: U.S. Pardon Attorney and Director of the newly established “Weaponization Working Group”.¹ The mandate of this working group is explicit: to “review” the activities of the Justice Department and other agencies during the Biden administration to identify instances where conduct “appears to have been designed to achieve political objectives or other improper aims.” The group’s focus specifically includes investigations into former President Trump and the January 6th Capitol rioters.¹ Martin himself acknowledged the linkage of his new assignments, stating, “The president has given me a new assignment as the Director of the Weaponization Working Group and the DOJ Pardon Attorney”.¹⁴ President Trump further amplified this connection, asserting that Martin “will make sure we finally investigate the Weaponization of our Government under the Biden Regime, and provide much needed Justice for its victims”.¹⁵

This dual appointment appears strategically crafted. The “Weaponization Working Group,” under Martin’s leadership, could potentially identify actions or prosecutions from the Biden era deemed “politically motivated.” Such findings could then, theoretically, provide a pretext or justification for Martin, in his capacity as Pardon Attorney, to scrutinize or question pardons Biden may have issued related to those same cases or individuals. Conversely, information or “conduct” ¹ unearthed during the pardon review could be fed into the “weaponization” narrative. Martin’s past actions as Acting U.S. Attorney, particularly the dismissal of prosecutors involved in politically charged cases ¹¹, offer a strong indication of the operational style he might employ in these new roles—an approach that critics fear will prioritize political alignment over the traditional independence and procedural integrity of the Department of Justice. The selection of an individual with such a pronounced partisan and controversial history for these specific roles strongly suggests an intent by the Trump administration to utilize the apparatus of the Justice Department to pursue political grievances and potentially reward allies, a move that could further erode the already strained norms of prosecutorial and executive independence.

A Quick Look: Marion’s Auditor Office: A Decades-Long Disaster Zone (Full Investigation Coming Soon)

The following table provides a concise summary of Ed Martin’s key controversies and political stances:

Role/Position	Key Stance/Action	Associated Controversy/Criticism	Supporting Evidence
Acting U.S. Attorney for D.C.	Fired/demoted prosecutors on Jan. 6 cases; Posted “Trump’s lawyers” comment on social media	Concerns over politicization of DOJ; Bipartisan criticism	11
Nominee for U.S. Attorney for D.C. (Withdrawn)	“Stop the Steal” advocate; Spoke at Jan. 5 rally; Represented Jan. 6 defendants	Nomination withdrawn due to lack of Senate support (incl. GOP); Concerns over modest legal experience and divisive politics	2
	Failed to initially disclose 150+ appearances on Russian state-funded media (RT, Sputnik)	Questions about judgment and foreign influence	11
Pardon Attorney & Director, Weaponization Working Group	Announced review of Biden pardons; Tasked with reviewing Biden-era DOJ for “political objectives”	Unprecedented review of past pardons; Concerns over impartiality and use of DOJ for political retribution	1

Marion County Justice Under Fire: VanBibber’s New Ethics Storm & Prosecutor’s Endorsement Raise Systemic Alarms

III. The Presidential Pardon Power: Constitutional Bedrock and Evolving Practice

The authority of a U.S. President to grant clemency is one of the most significant and least checked executive powers, rooted directly in the nation’s foundational document. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment”.³ This power is extensive, but not without defined boundaries. It applies exclusively to federal offenses, thereby excluding state crimes or civil wrongs.⁴ The Supreme Court affirmed in Ex parte Grossman that this includes the authority to pardon criminal contempt of court, though not civil contempt; the applicability to contempt of Congress remains a more ambiguous area.⁴ The Constitution explicitly prohibits the use of the pardon power in cases of impeachment.³ Furthermore, it is understood that the power cannot be used to immunize future criminal conduct ¹⁶ and, critically, the Supreme Court in Ex parte Garland established that this presidential prerogative “cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions”.⁵

Assisting the President in the exercise of this power is the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), an entity within the Department of Justice. The OPA’s primary function is to review applications for clemency and provide non-binding recommendations to the President.⁶ However, the President retains ultimate discretion and may choose to bypass the OPA entirely.⁶ The OPA’s history traces back to the 19th century, evolving from a shared responsibility between the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to the establishment of the Office of the Clerk of Pardons in 1865, which was eventually redesignated as the Office of the Pardon Attorney in 1894.⁶ The typical clemency process involves an application, often followed by a recommended waiting period of five years after the completion of a sentence.²⁰ The OPA then conducts a review, which for pardon applications may include an FBI background investigation, before a recommendation is forwarded to the President. Notably, this is a written process; no formal hearings are held for applicants.⁶

The historical application of the pardon power reveals a significant evolution in its use. Early presidents frequently wielded clemency as a tool for national reconciliation and healing. George Washington pardoned participants in the Whiskey Rebellion ²², Abraham Lincoln extended pardons to Confederate soldiers in an effort to reunify the nation after the Civil War ³, and Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to Vietnam War draft evaders.³ However, over time, the use of pardons has increasingly become politicized. Controversial pardons granted to political allies or figures connected to the president have sparked public debate and accusations of favoritism. Prominent examples include President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon ³, President George H.W. Bush’s pardons related to the Iran-Contra affair ⁵, and President Bill Clinton’s pardons of Marc Rich and his own brother.³ Analysts from various think tanks observe that modern presidents have increasingly utilized the pardon power for political leverage, a departure from the founders’ original intent of providing a mechanism for mercy and a check on potential excesses of the other branches of government.³²

This historical shift towards a more politicized use of the pardon power provides a crucial backdrop against which Ed Martin’s unprecedented proposal to review a predecessor’s pardons can be understood. While the pardon power has always been controversial when applied to politically sensitive cases, the idea of a subsequent administration systematically scrutinizing these acts through the Office of the Pardon Attorney is novel. The OPA’s traditional role has been administrative and advisory to the sitting president concerning new clemency petitions.⁹ There is no readily apparent precedent for the OPA to retroactively audit or seek to invalidate a previous president’s pardons. Martin’s initiative, therefore, challenges this historical understanding and potentially seeks to transform the OPA into an investigative body with a quasi-judicial function over past executive actions. If the OPA were to become an instrument for one administration to “investigate” the clemency acts of another, its perceived neutrality and administrative purpose would likely be severely compromised, turning it into yet another arena for partisan conflict.

The following table contrasts the established constitutional and legal parameters of the presidential pardon power with the potential interpretations or implications arising from Ed Martin’s proposed review:

Aspect of Pardon Power	Established Constitutional/Legal Position	Potential Interpretation/Implication of Martin’s Review
Scope of Offenses	Federal offenses only 4	No direct challenge implied, but review might focus on pardons for acts Martin deems not worthy of federal clemency.
Cases of Impeachment	Explicitly excluded from pardon power 4	Unlikely to be a direct basis for review unless an extremely broad interpretation of “impeachable offense” is argued.
Legislative Control	Presidential power cannot be fettered by legislative restrictions 5	Martin’s review is an executive, not legislative, action, but could be seen as an attempt to administratively limit past pardons.
Judicial Review of Pardon Grant	Very limited; courts generally affirm “unfettered executive discretion” 5	Martin’s review is not judicial, but might seek to establish grounds that could theoretically invite future (unlikely) judicial scrutiny.
Review by Subsequent Administration/OPA	No established precedent for OPA to review/invalidate past pardons; pardons considered final 7	Suggests a new oversight/investigative role for OPA to determine “lawful authorization” of a predecessor’s pardons.
Finality of Pardon	Considered final and irrevocable once granted and delivered 7	Implies pardons might not be final if deemed “unlawfully authorized” by a subsequent Pardon Attorney.

The Unaccounted: Children Missing from State and Federal Care in the United States

IV. President Biden’s Clemency Record: An Examination

Former President Joe Biden’s term was marked by a significant number of clemency actions, distinguishing his record in volume though also drawing controversy for specific grants. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, Biden granted 4,245 acts of clemency during his four-year tenure, a figure that surpasses any president since the early 20th century. This total comprised 80 pardons and a striking 4,165 commutations.²⁹ (Anadolu Agency reported a higher figure of 8,064, but the Pew data offers a more detailed breakdown ²²). Biden approved 29% of the clemency requests he received, the highest percentage since President Nixon.²⁹ A vast majority of these clemency actions, 96%, were granted in his final fiscal year, with a substantial number occurring in his last days in office.²⁹

Several of Biden’s clemency decisions attracted considerable attention and criticism, likely forming the primary targets for Ed Martin’s announced review:

• Family Members: Most notably, Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, who had been convicted of federal tax evasion and gun charges. This pardon was reportedly issued without a formal request from Hunter Biden.²² Additionally, pardons were granted to other family members—James Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden—with the stated rationale of countering “politically motivated attacks”.²² These actions inevitably drew backlash and accusations of favoritism.²⁹
• Pre-emptive Pardons: Biden issued a series of “preemptive pardons” to individuals who had not been convicted, charged, or, in some cases, even formally investigated for any crimes.²⁹ Recipients included Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; retired General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ⁸; and members and staff of the U.S. House committee that investigated the January 6th Capitol attack, such as Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff, as well as police officers who testified before the panel.⁸ The administration’s stated purpose for these pardons was to shield these individuals from potential future prosecutions by the Trump administration.²⁹ These, too, were met with significant criticism ²⁹, and some recipients, like then-Senator-elect Adam Schiff, reportedly indicated they would not accept such a pardon.²⁶
• Categorical Pardons: Biden utilized presidential proclamations to grant categorical pardons. In October 2022 and December 2023, he pardoned many individuals convicted of certain federal marijuana possession offenses, a move estimated to cover approximately 6,500 people.²² In June 2024, another proclamation granted pardons to former military service members convicted under a since-repealed article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that had banned consensual gay sex.²⁹
• High-Profile Individual Cases: Specific individual pardons also stood out. Don Scott, the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, received a pardon for a 1994 nonviolent federal drug offense, with the White House citing his rehabilitation and contributions to his community.³⁵ A posthumous pardon was granted to Marcus Garvey, the early 20th-century Black nationalist leader convicted of mail fraud.²⁵ Other pardons went to advocates for immigrant rights, prison reform, and gun violence prevention.³⁵
• Commutations: Biden’s record on commutations was particularly historic. He commuted the sentences of nearly all inmates on federal death row, changing the sentences of 37 out of 40 such individuals to life imprisonment without parole.²⁹ He also commuted the sentences of nearly 2,500 people impacted by what the ACLU termed the “failed war on drugs”.³⁶

The Watchdog That Watched It Burn: Ignored Warnings, Policy Failures, and the Government’s Hand in the Opioid Catastrophe

The rationales offered for these diverse clemency actions generally centered on themes of providing second chances, rectifying past injustices (particularly concerning the war on drugs and discriminatory laws), recognizing community contributions, and, in the case of pre-emptive pardons, protecting individuals from perceived political prosecution.²² However, critics lambasted many of these decisions as politically motivated, self-serving (especially those for family and political allies), and potentially undermining the rule of law or constituting an abuse of power.²⁶

The pre-emptive pardons issued by Biden, particularly for political allies and officials involved in January 6th investigations, and justified explicitly as a shield against potential Trump administration prosecutions, represented a direct political maneuver. This action has, in turn, seemingly invited a reciprocal political response from the Trump administration through Martin’s announced review. It suggests an escalatory cycle where executive powers, like the pardon, are increasingly wielded as instruments in ongoing political conflicts. Furthermore, the sheer volume and often last-minute timing of Biden’s clemency grants ²⁹, while potentially driven by broad policy objectives such as criminal justice reform, also create a wide array of actions that a politically motivated review could target for criticism. Even if the legal finality of these pardons remains intact, aspects like the granting of clemency “without receiving a formal request” ²⁹ or the concentration of grants in the administration’s final days could be framed by critics as rushed or lacking thorough diligence, thereby providing political fodder for Martin’s review. In this sense, Biden’s more controversial clemency actions, especially the pre-emptive and familial pardons, may have inadvertently supplied political cover, in the view of his opponents, for Martin’s unprecedented initiative, potentially weakening the long-term institutional respect for the pardon power by making it appear more overtly as a political tool to be contested by successive administrations.

The following table summarizes some of President Biden’s notable or controversial clemency actions:

Recipient(s)/Category	Type of Clemency	Offense (if applicable)	Stated Rationale by Biden Admin	Key Criticisms/Controversies	Supporting Evidence
Hunter Biden	Pardon	Federal tax evasion, gun charges	Son was “singled out,” “miscarriage of justice” (per Biden) 34	Nepotism, self-serving, abuse of power	22
Other Biden Family Members	Pardons	Not specified (pre-emptive)	Protection from “politically motivated attacks” 22	Nepotism, shielding family from scrutiny	22
Dr. Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley	Pre-emptive Pardons	None (not charged or convicted)	Protection from potential future Trump admin prosecution 29	Politically motivated, shielding allies, undermining potential accountability	8
Jan. 6 House Committee Members/Staff, Testifying Officers	Pre-emptive Pardons	None (not charged or convicted)	Protection from potential future Trump admin prosecution 29	Politically motivated, shielding allies involved in politically divisive investigation, some recipients declined 26	8
Individuals with Federal Marijuana Possession Convictions	Categorical Pardons (Proclamation)	Simple marijuana possession	Addressing past injustices of drug war, removing barriers 29	Some view as overreach or insufficient for broader drug reform	22
Former Military Members (Consensual Gay Sex)	Categorical Pardons (Proclamation)	Violations of since-repealed UCMJ article	Correcting historical injustice, recognizing service 29	Generally less controversial, seen as rectifying past discrimination	29
Don Scott (VA House Speaker)	Pardon	1994 nonviolent drug offense	Rehabilitation, community contributions, commitment to second chances 35	Generally positive reception, including from political opponents 35	35
Marcus Garvey (Posthumous)	Pardon	1920s mail fraud	Recognizing historical significance, rectifying potential past injustice 35	Supported by some members of Congress 35	25
Federal Death Row Inmates (37 of 40)	Commutations	Various capital crimes	Moral opposition to death penalty, concerns about fairness (implied)	Praised by abolitionists; criticized by proponents of capital punishment, families of victims of the non-commuted individuals	29
~2,500 Individuals (Drug Offenses)	Commutations	Various drug offenses	Addressing harms of “failed war on drugs,” promoting second chances 36	Largely praised by criminal justice reform advocates	36

V. “Lawfully Authorized”: Deconstructing the Grounds for Review

The central premise of Ed Martin’s intended review of former President Biden’s pardons hinges on the term “lawfully authorized”.¹ However, the legal meaning of this phrase in the context of challenging an already issued presidential pardon is far from clear and appears to venture into uncharted territory. The Constitution itself provides only two explicit limitations on the pardon power: it must be for “Offences against the United States” and cannot be used in “Cases of Impeachment”.⁴ Beyond these, the power is generally considered broad and, once exercised and the pardon delivered, final.

Some legal advocacy groups and scholars have posited theoretical limits. Protect Democracy, for instance, argues that pardons cannot be used in a way that violates core constitutional rights (such as issuing pardons that are racially discriminatory), undermine the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional rights, or be employed for a self-pardon, bribery, or obstruction of justice.¹⁹ Similarly, the ACLU contends that a president cannot pardon themselves or use the pardon power to obstruct justice, for example, by pardoning someone in exchange for their silence.³⁷ While these arguments raise important questions about potential abuses of the pardon power, they largely represent untested legal theories for revoking an already issued and accepted pardon, especially by a subsequent executive administration acting unilaterally.

Epstein’s Shadow Kingdom: Were World Leaders and Global Elites Complicit in a Decade of Horror?

The established legal doctrine strongly supports the finality and irrevocability of presidential pardons. There is a robust consensus among legal scholars that once a pardon is granted by the President and delivered to the recipient, it is final and cannot be revoked.⁶ A key historical precedent is an 1869 federal court ruling which stated, “when a pardon is complete, there is no power to revoke it, any more than there is power to revoke any other completed act”.⁷ The Office of the Pardon Attorney’s own Frequently Asked Questions page, while detailing the President’s constitutional authority, does not suggest that pardons can be overturned once issued.⁶ Even former President Trump’s contention that Biden’s pardons might be void due to the alleged use of an autopen for signatures has been widely dismissed by legal scholars, who note that the Constitution does not prescribe a specific methodology for signing pardon documents.¹ Interestingly, Ed Martin himself appeared to acknowledge the breadth of the pardon power, stating, “I happen to think the pardon power is plenary” ¹, meaning absolute and complete.

While the finality of pardons is well-established, a few narrow theoretical avenues for challenging the circumstances surrounding a pardon (though not necessarily the pardon itself post-issuance by a successor) have been discussed:

• Bribery: A pardon issued as a direct result of a bribe paid to the President could potentially be investigated as a criminal act on the part of the President, though the pardon itself might still stand.¹⁹ There is no evidence presented to suggest this applies to any of Biden’s pardons.
• Obstruction of Justice: If a pardon were granted with the corrupt intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation (for instance, to prevent a witness from testifying against the President), this could constitute a separate crime of obstruction.¹⁹ Again, while critics might attempt to frame some of Biden’s pre-emptive pardons in this light, direct evidence of such corrupt intent is a high bar.
• Lack of Delivery: A pardon is generally not considered complete until it is delivered to and accepted by the recipient. An undelivered pardon could, in theory, be revoked.⁸ This is highly unlikely to apply to pardons that have been publicly announced and acted upon.

Martin’s stated intention to review Biden’s pardons for “lawful authorization” and to subject them to “scrutiny,” despite his own acknowledgment of the “plenary” nature of the pardon power, reveals a significant internal contradiction.¹ This suggests that the term “lawfully authorized” is being employed strategically. Given that the established legal framework offers virtually no basis for such a review to result in the invalidation of a pardon, the term appears to be weaponized to create an illusion of a legitimate legal process. The “review” may be more focused on generating political pressure, creating negative narratives around Biden’s clemency decisions, or publicly “shaming” ¹ recipients, rather than achieving any actual legal revocation.

The very act of a formal “review” by the Pardon Attorney, regardless of its ultimate findings or lack of legal power to overturn, serves to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Biden’s pardons and, by extension, on Biden’s exercise of presidential authority. This can achieve a political goal of undermining Biden’s legacy and the individuals he pardoned, fitting neatly into the broader “weaponization” narrative pushed by the Trump administration.¹ If “lawful authorization” becomes a new, undefined standard for a subsequent administration’s Pardon Attorney to review past executive actions like pardons, it risks opening a Pandora’s Box. Such a precedent could lead to endless partisan recriminations and attempts to undo the settled actions of previous administrations, fundamentally destabilizing the concept of finality in presidential decisions and transforming the Office of the Pardon Attorney from an advisory body into an instrument of political warfare. Martin’s assertion that he has “already begun taking a look at the ‘conduct’ around them” ¹ further indicates an investigative posture that extends beyond a mere review of the pardon documents themselves, venturing into the motivations and circumstances surrounding their issuance.

VI. The Political Crucible: Pardons, Partisanship, and the “Weaponization” Narrative

Ed Martin’s announced review of former President Biden’s pardons cannot be divorced from the broader political context of his appointment and the concurrent establishment of the “Weaponization Working Group” within the Department of Justice. As previously noted, this group, also headed by Martin ¹, is tasked with scrutinizing Biden-era Justice Department and agency conduct for political motivations or improper aims, with a particular focus on investigations related to former President Trump and the January 6th Capitol riot.¹ The synergy between these two roles is potent. Martin’s statement that his team will “take a hard look” at Biden’s clemency actions and that he has already been examining the “conduct” surrounding them ¹ suggests an investigative and potentially adversarial approach that aligns seamlessly with the “weaponization” theme. President Trump’s own words underscore this linkage, stating that Martin “will make sure we finally investigate the Weaponization of our Government under the Biden Regime, and provide much needed Justice for its victims”.¹⁵

Operation Restore Justice: Unveiling the Shadows and the Enduring Fight Against Child Sex Trafficking

The political motivations behind this initiative appear transparent. Martin’s own background as a fervent “Stop the Steal” activist and a figure whose previous nomination for U.S. Attorney collapsed under bipartisan criticism for his perceived extremism and lack of impartiality ¹¹ makes any claim of neutral review highly suspect. The review explicitly targets the pardons issued by a political opponent’s administration, and significantly, many of Biden’s pre-emptive pardons were specifically intended to shield individuals from potential prosecutions by a future Trump administration.²⁹ The timing and public announcement of this review serve a broader political strategy aimed at portraying the previous administration’s Justice Department as politically “weaponized” against Trump and his allies.

Legal experts and think tanks across the ideological spectrum have voiced concerns about the increasing politicization of the clemency power.

• The Brennan Center for Justice has long warned against the abuse of the pardon power, particularly for political allies or for corrupt purposes. They advocate for reforms such as barring self-pardons and pardons for family members, and mandating greater transparency.¹⁷ They characterized the potential pardoning of January 6th rioters as a “grotesque misuse” of clemency.¹⁷
• The ACLU, while applauding Biden’s mass commutations for federal drug offenses as a step toward addressing systemic harms ³⁶, maintains that a president cannot pardon themselves or use the pardon power to obstruct justice.³⁷
• Protect Democracy argues that pardons cannot violate constitutional rights, place the president above the law, or be instruments of bribery or obstruction.¹⁹
• Even commentators associated with or analyzing the Federalist Society’s perspectives on original intent note a “backwards trend of pardoning friends, family, or close loyalists” by recent presidents of both political parties, with one analysis calling for a constitutional amendment to restrict pardons for family members and appointees.²⁴ Alexander Hamilton, a key framer often cited in these discussions, envisioned the pardon power as a tool for reconciliation and mercy.¹⁸
• Matt Kaiser, speaking to the International Bar Association, noted that both President Trump’s pardons related to January 6th and former President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter raise concerns about self-interest prevailing over the public interest.³⁴
• Stewart Ulrich of the USAPP blog at the London School of Economics argues that modern presidents have transformed the pardon power into a political tool, a deviation from the founders’ intentions.³²
• The Vera Institute of Justice emphasizes that clemency is a vital tool for justice that should transcend partisan politics, and that its politicization by both sides undermines its fundamental purpose.³³

The pardon review initiative, therefore, appears to be less a dispassionate legal exercise and more a central component of a political strategy designed to delegitimize the Biden administration and its actions, especially those concerning investigations into Trump and his allies. The “Weaponization Working Group” provides the thematic framework, and Martin’s dual leadership ensures that narratives developed in one sphere can readily reinforce the other. For instance, by scrutinizing Biden’s pardons of January 6th committee members or figures like Dr. Fauci and General Milley ²⁹, the review directly feeds the narrative that these individuals were part of a “weaponized” government apparatus.

Regardless of its legal outcome (or lack thereof, given the finality of pardons), the review itself serves as a potent messaging tool for the Trump administration. It is designed to resonate with a political base conditioned by narratives of grievance and persecution.³⁸ Martin’s stated intent to publicly “shame” individuals he deems “bad actors,” even if they cannot be criminally charged ¹, underscores this objective of shaping public perception. While there is bipartisan concern over the politicization of pardons by various administrations ²⁴, Martin’s review is not a neutral effort at reform. Instead, it is a targeted action against a political predecessor, escalating the existing problem of politicization into a direct inter-administration conflict over settled executive acts. This risks transforming the pardon power and the Office of the Pardon Attorney into instruments of perpetual political retribution, where each new administration feels compelled to investigate and attempt to undo the clemency acts of its rivals, fundamentally altering the nature of this significant executive prerogative.

Taking Back America: Record Fentanyl Seizure Dismantles Major Trafficking Ring with Alleged Sinaloa Cartel Links

VII. Consequences and Enduring Questions

The announcement by U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin of his intent to review pardons issued by former President Biden carries significant potential consequences, not only for the individuals whose clemency grants will be scrutinized but also for the institution of presidential clemency itself and broader principles of American governance.

For the individuals pardoned by Biden, the direct legal standing of their pardons is unlikely to change. As widely affirmed by legal scholars and historical precedent, presidential pardons, once accepted and delivered, are generally considered final and irrevocable.⁷ A “review” by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an entity within the executive branch, does not possess the inherent legal authority to strip a pardon granted by a former president. Consequently, the Fifth Amendment implications for these individuals are also unlikely to shift; a valid pardon typically extinguishes the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination for the specific pardoned federal crime.³⁹ A review is unlikely to restore this protection unless the pardon itself were somehow invalidated, a highly improbable scenario. However, individuals could still potentially invoke the Fifth Amendment concerning any unpardoned federal offenses or potential state-level charges.³⁹

The more tangible impact on these individuals may lie not in renewed legal jeopardy but in the realm of public scrutiny and reputational damage. Martin explicitly stated an intention to call out “bad actors” who cannot be charged, with the hope that they will face “shame”.¹ This suggests a strategy of public delegitimization and potential harassment, even in the absence of any legal recourse to alter the pardons. The process of being subjected to such a review, regardless of its legal outcome, can create significant stress, uncertainty, and inflict damage on the reputations of those pardoned. The primary “consequence” for these individuals may thus be targeted harassment and public shaming, aligning with Martin’s declared intent, rather than a reversal of their legal status.

Beyond the impact on individuals, Martin’s initiative poses long-term risks to the institution of presidential clemency. If pardons become subject to routine review or challenge by succeeding administrations, the fundamental nature of clemency as a final act of mercy or justice is severely undermined.³³ This could make future recipients hesitant to rely on such grants and diminish the power’s utility. The review itself is an overtly political act, risking further entrenchment of the perception that the pardon power is merely a political weapon rather than a tool for justice or national reconciliation.²⁸ Presidents might become more reluctant to issue controversial but potentially necessary pardons—for instance, those aimed at national healing after divisive events—if they anticipate these acts will be “reviewed” and attacked by the next administration. Furthermore, if the Office of the Pardon Attorney becomes viewed as a partisan instrument for investigating past administrations, its credibility and its traditional, more neutral advisory function will be irreparably damaged.

Silent Sabotage: Did Marion Insiders Let Financial Problems Fester?

The broader implications for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and public trust are also profound. Challenging the finality of pardons without a clear and established legal basis erodes the principle that executive actions, lawfully taken, are settled and reliable. It suggests a system where legal acts can be undone by political whim, undermining the stability of governance. While the President’s pardon power is a core executive function under Article II ⁴, an attempt by a subsequent executive, through the Office of the Pardon Attorney, to unilaterally “invalidate” these acts without due judicial process could raise complex separation of powers questions, even as the judiciary itself has historically maintained a very limited role in reviewing the grant of pardons.⁵ Such overtly partisan maneuvers can only deepen public cynicism about governmental institutions, reinforcing the perception that they are merely arenas for power struggles rather than bodies committed to upholding legal principles and the public good.²³ This risks further entrenching the idea that the U.S. justice system is one where outcomes are heavily influenced by political tides, contrary to the ideal of “a government of laws, not of men”.³¹In conclusion, Ed Martin’s proposed review of former President Biden’s pardons stands as a significant and potentially transformative challenge to established norms surrounding presidential clemency. It navigates a delicate balance between the concepts of mercy, justice, and accountability, all within the crucible of a hyper-polarized political environment. The presidential pardon power, broad and almost monarchical in its scope, has always existed in tension with democratic expectations of checks and balances. Martin’s initiative may prove to be a watershed moment, either by ultimately reaffirming the long-held principle of the finality of pardons or by ushering in a new era of instability where the executive actions of one administration become fair game for the political retribution of the next. Paradoxically, this controversy, fueled by Martin’s actions and building upon a history of politicized pardons from various administrations ²⁴, might spur calls for more robust, independent, and transparent clemency processes in the future, precisely to shield this vital executive power from such overt politicization by any administration. The enduring debate, articulated by Alexander Hamilton at the nation’s founding ³ and echoed by modern scholars ¹⁷, over how to ensure the pardon power serves the public good rather than private or partisan ends, has rarely been more pertinent. The attempt to review and potentially “void” pardons could fundamentally alter the perceived stability of U.S. executive actions, introducing a level of institutional volatility that could extend far beyond clemency to other presidential orders and decisions, thereby impacting the continuity and predictability of American governance.

Works Cited

1. New DOJ attorney will ‘take a hard look’ at Biden’s pardons – Spectrum News, https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tampa/weather-blog-florida-new/news/2025/05/14/ed-martin-pardon-attorney-biden-pardons-doj-president-trump-
2. Trump replaces controversial U.S. attorney pick Ed Martin , https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ed-martin-us-attorney-nomination-withdrawn/
3. Limiting Presidential Pardon Power The one constitutional amendment both political parties could support In the last days a pres, https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/f8696431-5918-4e5b-b7ff-a458a7250cdc/Kainoa%20Kelly%20(‘Iolani%20School),%20First%20Place%20Essay.pdf
4. Scope of Pardon Power | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov , https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-5/ALDE_00013322/
5. Presidential pardons: A constitutional and historical review , https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/presidential-pardons-a-constitutional-and-historical-review
6. Office of the Pardon Attorney | Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions
7. Fact-checking Trump’s claim that Biden pardons are ‘void’ because he used an autopen, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-claim-that-biden-pardons-are-void-because-he-used-an-autopen
8. No, presidential pardons cannot be revoked once finalized – News Center Maine, https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/verify/crime-verify/presidential-pardons-cannot-be-revoked-once-delivered/536-753bf84b-f915-47ed-a02a-ce4ba756cd20
9. Office of the Pardon Attorney | USAGov, https://www.usa.gov/agencies/office-of-the-pardon-attorney
10. Office of the Pardon Attorney – Department of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/pardon
11. Legal News > Your source for information behind the law, https://legalnews.com/Home/Articles?DataId=1584847
12. Trump pulls plug on Missouri’s Ed Martin as U.S. attorney pick after numerous controversies, https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2025-05-09/trump-pulls-plug-on-missouris-ed-martin-as-u-s-attorney-pick-after-numerous-controversies
13. After Jeanine Pirro picked to replace Edward Martin, a potential , https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeanine-pirro-edward-martin-justice-department-us-attorney-washington-dc/
14. District of Columbia | DC U.S. Attorney Ed Martin’s Prepared , https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/dc-us-attorney-ed-martins-prepared-remarks-may-13-press-conference
15. Trump Taps Former Prosecutor Who Threatened Medical Marijuana Dispensary To Lead Pardon Office, https://www.marijuanamoment.net/trump-taps-former-prosecutor-who-threatened-medical-marijuana-dispensary-to-lead-pardon-office/
16. Overview of Pardon Power | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov , https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/
17. Trump Pardoning Jan. 6 Insurrectionists Would Endorse Attacks on Democracy, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trump-pardoning-jan-6-insurrectionists-would-endorse-attacks-democracy
18. Federalist No 74 – The Avalon Project, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed74.asp
19. Preventing and Deterring Unlawful Pardons – Protect Democracy, https://protectdemocracy.org/work/preventing-and-deterring-unlawful-pardons/
20. Presidential Pardons: Definition, Eligibility & Legal Help – Federal Prison Consultant, https://federalcriminaldefenseattorney.com/early-release-from-prison/pardon/
21. Federal pardons in the United States – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States
22. FACTBOX: Biden leads US presidents with 8,064 pardons as more than 45,000 have been issued since 1775 – Anadolu Ajansı, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/factbox-biden-leads-us-presidents-with-8-064-pardons-as-more-than-45-000-have-been-issued-since-1775/3459194
23. The Presidential Pardon and Abraham Lincoln’s Views on Justice , https://ashbrook.org/viewpoint/the-presidential-pardon-and-abraham-lincolns-views-on-justice/
24. The Pardon Problem – Northeastern University Political Review, https://nupoliticalreview.org/2025/02/10/the-pardon-problem/
25. List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_president_of_the_United_States
26. The precedents for Trump’s and Biden’s use of pardon power, expert discusses, https://news.vt.edu/articles/2025/01/Pardon-power-preemptive-Trump-Biden-2025.html
27. Presidential Pardons: Constitutional Authority, Controversy, and Ethical Implications., https://journals.flvc.org/LHS/article/view/137489
28. Has Pardon Power Gone Too Far? – Baker School, https://baker.utk.edu/news/has-pardon-power-gone-too-far/
29. How presidents compare on pardons, commutations, other forms of , https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/07/biden-granted-more-acts-of-clemency-than-any-prior-president/
30. How to Prevent Abuse of the President’s Pardon Power | Brennan , https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-prevent-abuse-presidents-pardon-power
31. The presidential pardon power, explained – Protect Democracy, https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-presidential-pardon-power-explained/
32. Modern presidents have shifted the pardon power from an act of mercy to a political tool, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2025/05/15/modern-presidents-have-shifted-the-pardon-power-from-an-act-of-mercy-to-a-political-tool/
33. Politics Can’t Cheapen the Power of the Presidential Pardon – Vera Institute, https://www.vera.org/news/politics-cant-cheapen-the-power-of-the-presidential-pardon
34. US Presidency: Latest pardons cause serious rule of law concerns , https://www.ibanet.org/US-Presidency-Latest-pardons-cause-serious-rule-of-law-concerns
35. Biden pardons Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, Black nationalist , https://www.npr.org/2025/01/19/g-s1-43579/biden-pardons-virginia-scott-garvey
36. ACLU Applauds President Biden’s Decision to Grant Clemency to Nearly 2500 People, https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-president-bidens-decision-to-grant-clemency-to-nearly-2500-people
37. No, President Trump, You Are Not Above the Law | American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/no-president-trump-you-are-not-above-law
38. Trump, Biden and the politics of presidential pardons | BBC News – YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEm8RoOYsRA&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
39. Do presidential pardons remove the Fifth Amendment rights of , https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/do-presidential-pardons-remove-the-fifth-amendment-rights-of-recipients
40. Preemptive Pardons: Constitutional Authority and Real World Implications, https://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/preemptive-pardons-constitutional-authority-and-real-world-implications/
41. The Politics of Clemency in the Early American Presidency: Power Inherited, Power Refashioned | Journal of Policy History, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/politics-of-clemency-in-the-early-american-presidency-power-inherited-power-refashioned/89FD4631C97A6E681C4EAB8BA19623B2
42. The Evolution of the Presidential Pardon From Jefferson to Trump – Town Hall Video, https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/americas-town-hall-programs/the-evolution-of-the-presidential-pardon-from-jefferson-to-trump