Muslim World Report

Trump Attempts to Nullify Biden's Pardons Amid Legal Turmoil

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 18, 2025 10:34 AM | 9 min read | 1734 words

TL;DR: Former President Donald Trump asserts that President Biden’s pardons are null, alleging improper execution without Biden’s consent. This claim raises critical concerns regarding executive power and the stability of American democracy, amid fears of increased political polarization and potential judicial overreach.

The Fragile State of American Democracy: Examining Trump’s Legal Overreach

In an alarming display of legal overreach, former President Donald Trump has recently declared all pardons issued by President Joe Biden to be null and void. This unprecedented assertion has sent shockwaves through political and legal circles, raising serious questions about the foundational principles of American democracy. Trump’s claims rest on the dubious assertion that these pardons were executed without Biden’s knowledge and approval—an assertion that is firmly contradicted by Biden’s public affirmations regarding his actions.

These claims not only seek to undermine the legitimacy of a sitting president’s actions but also fit into Trump’s broader strategy of delegitimizing any authority that opposes him. This echoes themes of authoritarian reversion and constitutional retrogression identified in contemporary political discourse (Huq & Ginsburg, 2017). History is rife with examples of leaders attempting to consolidate power by challenging or disregarding the actions of their successors, harkening back to the struggles of the Roman Republic. Just as figures like Julius Caesar faced opposition from the Senate, Trump’s actions raise a question: What safeguards are in place to prevent the erosion of democratic norms in favor of personal ambition?

The pardons in question, many of which were granted to individuals previously viewed as vulnerable to political retribution under a potential Trump administration, reflect a critical aspect of executive discretion intended to safeguard justice and fairness. Trump’s attempts to invalidate these pardons signal a troubling willingness to wield governmental powers for personal and political vendettas, risking further politicization of the judiciary and eroding public confidence in its impartiality. As we reflect on this situation, we must consider: how far is too far in the quest for power, and at what point do the actions of a leader cross the line from governance into tyranny?

Implications of This Dispute

The implications of this dispute extend beyond mere legal wrangling; they represent a deep-seated threat to the foundational principles that uphold American democracy. Just as the contentious debates around presidential powers during the Watergate scandal reshaped public trust in government, today’s developments echo a similar historical tension.

  • Legal Precedence: If the courts validate Trump’s claims, it could suggest that executive decisions could be capriciously reversed, creating a cycle of political retribution undermining justice in our legal framework (Khaitan, 2019). This situation mirrors the post-Watergate reforms, where the balance between executive power and accountability was scrutinized and redefined.

  • Reincarceration Risks: Reversibility of pardons, particularly for non-violent offenders, could lead to widespread reincarceration, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities (Barkow & Osler, 2023). Historically, such shifts in policy have often exacerbated social divides, reminiscent of the War on Drugs’ devastating effects on communities of color.

  • Public Outrage: This might incite public outrage, igniting demands for criminal justice reforms and highlighting systemic inequalities in the nascent legal system. The social upheaval of the 1960s, driven by civil rights movements, serves as a potent reminder of how political disputes can catalyze broader societal change.

Additionally, if the judiciary endorses Trump’s narrative, it would reinforce a troubling trend of executive aggrandizement, where political players leverage their power against adversaries rather than uphold democratic tenets. This raises critical questions not only about the legitimacy of executive actions but also about the very nature of democratic governance: What safeguards exist to prevent the erosion of our democratic institutions, and how might we hold power to account without descending into chaos?

Should President Biden opt to counter Trump’s declarations through legal avenues, the ensuing battles could engulf the political arena for years, reminiscent of the protracted legal disputes that followed the 2000 presidential election. Just as the Supreme Court’s involvement in Bush v. Gore sparked intense political division and public outcry, similar legal disputes today could further fracture bipartisan cooperation. Could a lengthy legal saga overshadow the pressing issues facing the nation, such as healthcare and climate change, leading to increased public disillusionment with the political process?

  1. Biden’s Legal Success:

    • A ruling affirming the pardons’ validity could embolden Biden to adopt more aggressive policies, reminiscent of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives during the Great Depression, which aimed to reshape American society in response to crisis.
    • This might shift the political narrative in favor of the Democratic Party, similar to how key Supreme Court decisions in the 1950s and 1960s bolstered civil rights movements and catalyzed political realignment.

  2. Legal Risks:

    • A protracted battle could alienate moderate voters, pushing them toward the political edges, reflecting how contentious political environments can drive individuals to extremes, similar to the polarization witnessed during the Vietnam War era.
    • If courts validate Trump’s claims, it could solidify his narrative of grievance and establish a dangerous template for future executive overreach (O’Donoghue, 2021), echoing the fears of unchecked power that fueled debates during the Watergate scandal.

In either scenario, the implications for American democracy are profound. The potential for judicial rulings to influence political dynamics invites us to consider: how do we ensure that the scales of justice do not tipping dangerously toward partisan interests? This underscores the critical need for clear guidelines surrounding executive powers and the limits of political maneuvering within the legal framework.

What If the Political Landscape Shifts?

The American political landscape is already marred by volatility, similar to a ship navigating through treacherous waters during a storm. Just as unpredictable waves can toss a vessel off course, any meaningful deviation from traditional party structures could amplify existing crises, leading to even greater instability. Historical examples, such as the realignment of political parties in the 1930s during the Great Depression, illustrate how significant shifts can reshape the political environment. The Democratic Party, for instance, transformed into a coalition that included both urban workers and Southern Democrats, fundamentally altering the course of American politics. Are we on the verge of a similar upheaval today, where new coalitions may emerge, challenging long-held beliefs and alliances? If so, what will the implications be for governance and policy-making in an already divided nation?

Potential Shifts:

  • The rise of grassroots movements or fringe parties could lead to populist movements that challenge the established order, reminiscent of the populist waves seen in the late 19th century with figures like William Jennings Bryan, whose campaigns galvanized ordinary citizens against the political elite.
  • Trump’s enduring influence may pressure other political actors to mirror his tactics, further fracturing the traditional political landscape, much like the way the Tea Party disrupted the Republican Party dynamics a decade ago.

If this polarization continues unchecked, we risk a political environment characterized by mistrust, hostility, and incivility, undermining democratic engagement and inviting a cycle of reactionary politics that could lead to broader civil unrest and political instability (Arafa, 2018). Historical examples, such as the political polarization experienced in the years leading up to the American Civil War, highlight how divisions can escalate into significant conflict.

Moreover, significant political shifts could yield substantial changes in policy-making, as emergent groups seek to dismantle established infrastructures. Lawmakers might navigate complex alliances and rivalries, often sacrificing long-term goals for immediate electoral gains. Are we prepared to navigate this tumultuous landscape, or will the lessons of history teach us too late?

Strategic Maneuvers for All Involved Players

In this moment of intense political upheaval, strategic actions are essential for navigating the evolving landscape.

For Biden’s administration:

  • Publicly reaffirm the legitimacy of the pardons to restore faith in executive authority, much like President Gerald Ford’s controversial pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974 aimed to heal the nation after Watergate.
  • Engage legal scholars to articulate a counter-narrative to Trump’s claims, reinforcing public trust, analogous to how scholars debated the merits of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation amid fierce opposition.

For Trump and his supporters:

  • Engage on social media and public rallies to reinforce their base, reminiscent of how grassroots movements historically mobilized support during pivotal political eras.
  • Consider a strategic pivot toward moderation to appeal to disillusioned segments of the electorate, similar to how leaders often recalibrate their messages in response to shifting public sentiment.

The judiciary must strive to maintain its independence, ensuring that legal rulings adhere to constitutional principles rather than political whims. Just as the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision aimed to uphold justice against prevailing societal prejudices, this commitment to impartiality remains vital in countering the erosion of public trust in judicial institutions.

Finally, the American public can shape this narrative through civic engagement and active participation in democratic processes. By resisting passivity, citizens can influence the political landscape, fostering a culture that embraces democratic principles. Imagine a vibrant tapestry where each thread—each citizen’s voice—contributes to the larger narrative of democracy.

As we navigate these uncertain waters, the stakes have never been higher for the legal institutions meant to uphold democracy. The ongoing developments surrounding Trump’s legal maneuvering and Biden’s responses highlight the intricate interplay between law, politics, and public perception. A delicate balance between asserting interests and fostering collaboration is essential for navigating this complex terrain, reminding us that history often offers profound lessons on the importance of unity and resilience in the face of division.

References

Arafa, M. A. (2018). A question to the President of the United States, Donald Trump: is it a travel ban, or a Muslim ban, or a travel Muslim ban?. Revista de Investigações Constitucionais. https://doi.org/10.5380/rinc.v5i2.58990

Barkow, R. E., & Osler, M. W. (2023). Clemency. Annual Review of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-022222-040514

Dijkstra, H., von Allwörden, L., Schütte, L., & Zaccaria, G. (2022). Donald Trump and the survival strategies of international organisations: when can institutional actors counter existential challenges?. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2022.2136566

Huq, A. Z., & Ginsburg, T. (2017). How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2901776

Hogg, M. A. (2014). Social Instability and Self-Uncertainty: Fertile Ground for Political Polarization, Ideological Schism, and Directive Leadership.

Khaitan, T. (2019). Executive aggrandizement in established democracies: A crisis of liberal democratic constitutionalism. International Journal of Constitutional Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moz018

Navarro, V. (1998). Neoliberalism, “Globalization,” Unemployment, Inequalities, and the Welfare State. International Journal of Health Services. https://doi.org/10.2190/y3x7-rg7e-6626-fvpt

O’Donoghue, A. (2021). No tyranny for failing Donald Trump – sad! Law, constitutionalism and tyranny in the twenty-first century. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72i3.978

← Prev Next →