By Tony Bruce and Mary Jones | Thursday, December 12, 2024 | 12 min read
For dozens of individuals currently serving time in federal prisons across the country, Donald Trump’s recent election as president isn’t just a political event—it’s a potential lifeline.
Since the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, hundreds of people have faced legal repercussions, with many convicted and imprisoned for their roles in the attack. Now, as Trump prepares to re-enter the White House, some of these convicted rioters are clinging to the hope that he will fulfill his controversial promise to grant them pardons. Trump has described January 6 as “a day of love,” an unsettling characterization that has sparked widespread concern and debate.
The former president has repeatedly referred to the incarcerated rioters as “political prisoners,” claiming they’ve been treated unfairly by a biased and unjust system. He has, however, offered mixed messages about the scope of his potential pardons. Speaking to a conference of Black journalists earlier this year, Trump stated he would “absolutely” consider freeing January 6 participants—though he added the caveat, “if they’re innocent.” Despite these qualifications, there remains a real possibility that he could issue blanket pardons to every individual jailed in connection with the insurrection, possibly as early as his first day back in office.
This prospect raises critical concerns about justice, accountability, and the precedent such an action would set. Trump’s framing of the insurrectionists as victims of political persecution resonates deeply with his loyal base, but for many others, it starkly contrasts with the violent reality of the events of January 6. Images of rioters storming the Capitol, attacking police officers, and threatening the democratic process remain fresh in the public consciousness.
A potential mass pardon would not only be a polarizing act but could also send a troubling message about the consequences—or lack thereof—of attempting to overthrow democratic institutions. It underscores the deep divisions in America’s political and social fabric and raises questions about how the nation can move forward while grappling with the legacy of that dark day.
As Trump inches closer to assuming office, the fate of these convicted individuals hangs in the balance. For the nation, the stakes of his decision extend far beyond the prisoners themselves, touching on the fundamental principles of accountability, justice, and the rule of law.
“That signals something very dangerous—not just for America, but for the stability of our entire society,” deeply concerned about the potential fallout from Donald Trump’s decision to pardon those involved in the January 6 insurrection. “If Trump pardons some of the most extreme figures from that day, it sends a chilling message: he’s building a private army.”
This army, could be used to challenge the results of the 2028 presidential election should he lose, and even to keep him in power indefinitely. The danger, is not just about the individuals involved but what they could do with the freedom these pardons would grant them. “These groups could turn their attention to attacking anyone they deem an enemy—press, judges, police, poll workers, even justices of the Supreme Court,” “The people entrusted with upholding democracy could find themselves targeted, all in the name of maintaining a hold on power.”
This scenario could lead to a breakdown of trust in the institutions that are vital for upholding the rule of law, and undermine the very foundations of a democratic society. The thought of this kind of power grab could leave Americans questioning whether their leaders are truly accountable or if an unchecked group of vigilantes could seize control.
“It’s not just about pardoning individuals from the past,” It’s about what those decisions could enable in the future—turning our democracy into something unrecognizable, where threats to the system are met with reward, not consequences.
The prospect of such pardons takes on an even more alarming tone when considering the extremist leaders who orchestrated and carried out the attack. Many of these individuals are now serving some of the longest sentences handed down for their roles in the insurrection. Should Trump decide to pardon them, it would not only undermine the justice system but could reinvigorate extremist organizations that had been weakened by aggressive federal prosecutions.
If he does pardon people that are part of those groups, we will see an upsurge in recruitment. It would breathe new life into groups that have been gutted by legal actions and forced into retreat by the federal system targeting domestic violent extremism.
The implications of such a move extend beyond these organizations’ current membership. Pardons could embolden these groups to rebrand themselves, broadening their appeal under the banner of right-wing causes. We’ll also see an upsurge in groups of people perhaps rebranding themselves, doubling down on their ideology, and recruiting those who feel alienated or emboldened by Trump’s actions.
Such developments could have ripple effects throughout the country, further inflaming political divisions and potentially escalating into widespread unrest. The January 6 attack was not just an isolated event but a sobering example of how quickly political rhetoric can turn into action—and violence. By extending pardons, Trump could pave the way for a resurgence of domestic extremism, making an already fractured nation even more volatile.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. The possibility of pardons serves as a reminder of the precarious balance between justice and political calculation, raising urgent questions about the future of accountability and democracy in the United States.
Can Trump Pardon the January 6 Rioters?
Donald Trump’s unpredictable use of his pardon power has sparked speculation about whether he might extend clemency to January 6th insurrectionists. However, the framers of the U.S. Constitution anticipated scenarios where this authority could be misused. In fact, according to D.W. Buffa, a Brookings Institution scholar and expert on the pardon process, they even foresaw the possibility of a president like Trump.
Under Article II, Section 2, the Constitution grants the president the authority to issue pardons and reprieves for federal offenses—except in cases of impeachment. This carefully designed limitation highlights the framers’ intent to prevent the abuse of executive power, especially in situations where the president might shield themselves or their allies from accountability.
When the Constitution was drafted during the summer of 1787, ratification by at least nine states was required for it to take effect. While there was broad consensus that the president should have the power to pardon, some delegates expressed concerns about unchecked authority. Treason, in particular, was a contentious issue. Many felt that pardons for treason should require approval from at least one house of Congress. Alexander Hamilton eloquently argued for this precaution, noting, “the supposition of the connivance of the Chief Magistrate ought not to be entirely excluded.”
This provision wasn’t just theoretical—it was a deliberate safeguard against a president misusing the pardon power to undermine justice. As Buffa points out, the framers’ remarkable foresight ensured a system of checks and balances that remains relevant even in the face of contemporary challenges. Their careful design serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting the integrity of governance from potential abuses of executive authority.
However, Trump’s pardon powers are limited to federal crimes, meaning he can only pardon individuals convicted of crimes under federal law. This includes the rioters prosecuted by the Department of Justice for their involvement in the January 6 insurrection.
As of now, 663 people have been convicted and incarcerated for their roles in the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol, according to Luke Baumgartner, a researcher at George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, who is closely tracking the cases. Currently, 200 individuals remain imprisoned on charges related to the insurrection, not counting those who have been sentenced to prison but have not yet reported to their facilities.
While Trump could choose to issue pardons for these individuals, the decision would undoubtedly stir intense debate, given the severity of the events on January 6 and the ongoing impact it has had on the nation.
Trump may consider consulting the DOJ’s Pardon Attorney’s Office for guidance, but legally, he isn’t required to. According to Crouch, on Day 1 of his presidency, Trump could immediately grant broad clemency to anyone charged in connection with the January 6 insurrection.
While a presidential pardon wouldn’t erase the criminal records of those pardoned, Buffa pointed out, it would set them free almost instantly. For those involved in armed militia groups or other violent factions, however, the significance of a presidential pardon goes beyond just release. It would be the only way for federally convicted felons to regain their legal right to own firearms—an issue of particular importance to some of the insurrectionists who participated in the attack.
The individuals still imprisoned for crimes related to January 6 span a wide spectrum, from those serving just a few months for lesser offenses, to the leaders of extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. These leaders are serving long sentences—22 years and 18 years, respectively—for their roles in a seditious conspiracy aimed at overthrowing the government.
So far, the Trump campaign has remained tight-lipped about the specific individuals he intends to pardon. When pressed for details, a spokesperson for the president-elect said that pardon decisions would be made on a “case-by-case basis.”
However, social media activity from accounts linked to the incarcerated insurrectionists provides some insight into how they perceive the potential for pardons. For instance, the official Telegram channel for the Proud Boys has been urging its members to avoid any actions that could jeopardize their comrades’ chances of release. A post from November 7 reads, “While you may think your efforts are noble or you want to feel that without your actions DJT won’t follow through with his promise to free the hostages, it will likely have the opposite effect.”
Lawyers for Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers who is currently serving an 18-year sentence, expressed cautious optimism regarding the possibility of a presidential pardon.
“Stewart was convicted because of things he said. He said a lot, but none of it was illegal,” explained Rhodes’ attorney, Ed Tarpley. “I believe Stewart would be at the top of the list for a pardon, but right now, it’s all uncertain. We just don’t know how it will play out.”
At the same time, Rhodes’ estranged family is filled with fear at the prospect of his release. Having accused him of years of psychological and physical abuse, they are worried about what his return might mean, especially in their small Montana town.
“I’ve been hiding from the world. It’s just too much to handle right now,” Rhodes’ ex-wife, Tasha Adams, said. “I don’t even know what to do anymore.”
The far-right extremist movement in America has remained relatively quiet in recent years, but its history is marked by moments of intense activity.
During the first Trump administration, the “alt-right” emerged as a powerful and vocal force, gaining national attention in 2017 and 2018. This new movement fueled racist demonstrations, including the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and violent street confrontations between far-right groups and leftist counterprotesters.
The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for further radicalization, as far-right groups—comprising armed militias, conspiracy theorists, and white supremacists—came together at anti-government and anti-vaccine protests across the country, openly defying lockdown measures and public health orders.
The climax of this rising far-right movement came on January 6, 2021, when thousands of individuals, including armed militias, white supremacists, Christian extremists, and conspiracy theorists, stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Despite efforts by conservative politicians, commentators, and influencers to downplay the January 6th Capitol attack—framing it as a peaceful demonstration, despite over 150 police officers being assaulted—the Justice Department and FBI were relentless in their pursuit of justice. They tracked down and charged more than 1,200 individuals involved in the insurrection, continuing the prosecutions even in the months leading up to the election.
The consequences of these legal actions, combined with a Democratic administration’s commitment to addressing far-right extremism, were significant. Groups like the Proud Boys, once a major force, began to fragment. With its founder behind bars, the Oath Keepers, which had once boasted tens of thousands of members—many of them former and current military and law enforcement personnel—suffered a similar decline.
However, while the mainstream far-right organizations struggled to hold on to their influence, the underlying sentiment that fueled their rise remained persistent.
Throughout the Biden administration, far-right extremists sought new ways to remain relevant, increasingly focusing on culture wars such as opposition to trans rights, the banning of books addressing LGBTQ+ issues, and protests against all-age drag shows.
While the prosecutions related to January 6th had a “chilling effect” on the public displays and actions of far-right groups, experts warn that presidential pardons for those involved in the insurrection could reverse this trend. Katherine Keneally, head of threat analysis at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, explained that such pardons would not only ease potential recruits’ fears but also draw significant media attention, potentially giving the movement a renewed sense of legitimacy and momentum.
“It certainly has the potential to make people less worried about joining, and those releases will be highly publicized,” Keneally said. “That media attention alone could help fuel recruitment.”
When Donald Trump first entered office in 2016, he garnered support from the far-right extremists in American politics, but, as Carroll Rivas pointed out, he didn’t fully embrace that support. However, in recent months, Trump has increasingly aligned himself with some of the most extreme factions of his base, including QAnon conspiracy theorists and Christian nationalists. According to Rivas, a pardon for January 6th rioters would send a very clear message about his political direction.
“The message a pardon sends is that this behavior is acceptable—that it’s okay, and he welcomes these groups as part of his coalition,” Rivas explained. “While Trump may not directly echo everything these groups say, it’s evident that he has no problem with them being part of his broader support base. He’s made it clear he’s comfortable with them.”
Of course, Rivas acknowledged that politicians often make promises during campaigns, and Trump could backpedal on his pledge to pardon those involved in the January 6th insurrection or might only offer clemency to a handful of nonviolent offenders.
However, if Trump follows through with his plan, Rivas emphasized, it will signal a definitive shift in his leadership style.
“A pardon would send the message that this isn’t just a campaign tactic—it’s part of who he is, and how he wants to lead,” she said. “It would make it clear how he intends to govern moving forward.”
Copyright 2024 FN, NewsRoom.
