Preemptive pardons are making Washington look like a criminal syndicate

Nothing says confidence in clean government quite like giving someone a pardon before they’re even charged with a crime.

Think about what a preemptive pardon actually says.

“You are free for whatever you may have done in the past, and the federal government can’t prosecute you for it.”

That used to be an extraordinary constitutional power reserved for extraordinary moments.

Now it feels like it’s becoming standard operating procedure.

On his way out, President Biden issued preemptive pardons covering several family members, along with Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, and members and staff of the January 6 committee, arguing they faced the risk of political retaliation.

Months later, President Trump issued preemptive pardons for dozens of people connected to efforts surrounding the 2020 election, including Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis. Earlier, he had also granted broad clemency to more than 1,500 people charged or convicted in connection with January 6.

The legal authority isn’t really the story.

The Constitution gives presidents broad pardon powers, and the Supreme Court recognized long ago in Ex parte Garland that a pardon can apply after an act but before charges are filed.

The story is what this says about Washington.

Both parties now seem to be working from the same assumption.

When power changes hands, protect your own first.

One administration says it’s necessary because the next administration can’t be trusted.

The next administration makes the exact same argument.

Then the cycle gets bigger.

Reports have suggested discussions inside the White House about additional large pardon packages, including ideas tied to the nation’s 250th anniversary. President Trump has also publicly discussed the possibility of extending preemptive pardons to aides before leaving office. Meanwhile, Reuters has reported that much of the second-term clemency process has increasingly bypassed the traditional Justice Department review process in favor of a more direct White House approach.

That should make everyone uncomfortable, regardless of which party they support.

Because once preemptive pardons become routine, they stop looking like rare constitutional safeguards.

They start looking like political insurance policies.

Maybe that’s the future of Washington.

Win the election.

Protect your allies before anyone can investigate them.

Leave office.

Let the next administration do the same.

At some point, the debate stops being whether preemptive pardons are constitutional.

The bigger question is why both parties increasingly behave like they expect the next government to come after them the moment they lose power.