Written by Caleb Peterson.
President Biden has made history by granting a staggering number of pardons and commutations in one day. On Thursday, the White House announced the clemency of 39 individuals and the commutation of sentences for nearly 1,500 more. This unprecedented move follows his controversial decision earlier this month to pardon his own son, Hunter Biden, which sparked calls within the Democratic Party for broader clemency efforts.
According to Biden, this initiative represents a step toward what he describes as “equal justice under the law.” In a statement, the president pledged to continue reviewing clemency petitions, emphasizing rehabilitation and second chances. For many, however, the timing and scale of this action raise questions about political motivations as Biden’s tenure nears its conclusion.
The official list, released by the White House, focused on non-violent offenders, primarily those convicted of drug-related crimes. Yet, beyond the drug-related cases, details about other offenses remain sparse. The administration highlighted the pardoned individuals’ community contributions, career achievements, and academic milestones—but omitted specifics on the exact nature of the crimes in some cases.
Who Made the Cut?
Among the nearly 1,500 whose sentences were commuted, Biden’s statement drew attention to those who had been under home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. He argued that their original prison terms would have been shorter under modern sentencing guidelines. Many had already reintegrated into their communities, supporting families and maintaining jobs, making them prime candidates for this broad clemency.
The 39 individuals granted full pardons included diverse examples of redemption. These ranged from a decorated military veteran and pilot to a nurse who played a pivotal role in vaccination campaigns. Others included an addiction counselor working with at-risk youth. While these stories paint an inspiring picture of reform and second chances, they also serve as strategic talking points to bolster public support.
This isn’t Biden’s first foray into clemency. In April 2022, he granted his first wave of pardons and commutations to 75 individuals, many of whom had non-violent drug convictions. Later that year, six more were pardoned, primarily for alcohol- and drug-related offenses. Over the past two years, the president has continued to issue clemency orders, with a significant focus on those who were under home confinement during the pandemic
A Political Statement or a Genuine Commitment?
Critics argue that the scale of Biden’s clemency push might be less about justice and more about legacy-building. The president’s pledge to “advance equal justice” and “promote public safety” is noble in its phrasing, but the lack of transparency around certain cases—especially the non-drug-related offenses—has sparked skepticism.
Moreover, the inclusion of individuals with high-profile success stories could be seen as a calculated effort to sidestep tougher questions. What about those with less glamorous post-incarceration narratives? Are they less deserving of a second chance? The heavy emphasis on pandemic-era home confinement also raises questions about whether this clemency wave is a unique response to unusual circumstances or a harbinger of future trends in criminal justice.
For his part, Biden seems undeterred by criticism. In his statement, he reiterated his commitment to “meaningful second chances,” leaving the door open for further clemency actions before he leaves office. The clemency effort also conveniently diverts attention from controversies surrounding his administration, including the highly publicized pardon of Hunter Biden.
Our Take
While second chances are vital for a just society, this sweeping clemency effort feels more like a strategic political play than a genuine act of reform. The lack of clarity about certain pardons—combined with the focus on pandemic-era cases—raises valid concerns about fairness and consistency. If clemency is to serve as a tool for justice, it must be applied transparently and equitably, not as a means to bolster political narratives.
This approach also sends a mixed message to the public. On one hand, it highlights the value of rehabilitation. On the other, it risks undermining trust in the justice system by appearing selective or politically motivated. Americans deserve a president who prioritizes justice for all, not just those whose stories align with convenient talking points.
