Accountability, With Pardons Prepared in Advance

On October 22, Donald Trump explained his standard for government service: “I want my people to be honest. And if they’re not going to be honest, they have to be prosecuted.” By October 24, the Washington Sun was reporting that White House lawyers were evaluating mass pardons for junior staff. The administration appears to be considering two employee handbooks. One requires accountability. The other discusses how to waive it.

The Sun cited two people familiar with the conversations. A pardon covering every junior employee was considered unlikely, one source said. The alternative could cover employees in particular policy areas, including deportations, war or trade. Conservative organizations had pressed for pardons or help with legal fees. This is reported deliberation, not an announced pardon program. Neither a signed staff pardon nor a finding of staff misconduct comes attached to that report.

Asked about it after voting in Florida on Saturday, Trump said, “I haven’t thought about it, but certainly I’d be allowed to.” He invoked Biden’s pardons and said he did not want innocent people dragged through proceedings and financially ruined. That is a real concern, not something to dismiss because the speaker is Trump. Innocent employees can need lawyers. A government’s answer need not be to make criminal accountability an optional extra for selected departments.

Biden supplied an actual precedent, not just a convenient surname. His pardon of Anthony Fauci covered any federal offenses he might have committed in connection with specified public roles, from January 2014 through the pardon date. The warrant was dated January 19, 2025. It was not proof that Fauci had committed those offenses. Trump is entitled to point to it. Everyone else is entitled to notice that Washington’s preferred response to a questionable precedent is to investigate whether it comes in bulk.

The legal distinction matters. A president can pardon federal offenses already committed before charges are brought. He cannot authorize future crimes with a pardon. State crimes are outside that power, and a pardon does not erase private civil liability. “Preemptive” means before prosecution, not before the offense. The Constitution did not establish a subscription service for next year’s misconduct.

Nor does Trump’s honesty statement prove a contradiction in any particular case. He was answering a question about a reported investigation and said he did not know the details. Protecting an innocent employee and prosecuting a dishonest one are compatible promises. The problem with protection organized by policy area is how little the category tells us about which person did which thing. A department name is an odd substitute for examining conduct.

That leaves the public with a reasonable question for the lawyers: how will the proposed protection distinguish persecution from prosecution? Paying for a defense lets that distinction be tested. A broad pardon can prevent the criminal case from being brought at all. For an administration insisting its people are honest, that is an unusually elaborate way to avoid finding out.