Rewriting Wrongs: The Case for Trump’s Day-One Pardons

In the grand theater of American governance, the presidential pardon stands as a powerful instrument for justice and mercy, a constitutional mechanism that embodies the principle of redemption. As Donald Trump prepares to step back into the Oval Office, his first day offers an unparalleled opportunity to wield this power not as a political tool, but as a moral imperative. From veterans and whistleblowers to cryptocurrency pioneers and January 6th protesters, Trump’s clemency decisions can underscore his commitment to liberty, fairness, and the rule of law by addressing cases marked by disproportionate sentences and politically motivated prosecutions. This op-ed will examine the cases for Brian Kolfage, Ross Ulbricht, Sam Bankman-Fried, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, January 6th participants, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro. Each case presents a unique blend of historical context, legal considerations, and moral urgency.

Brian Kolfage: Honoring Sacrifice, Balancing Justice

Brian Kolfage’s story is both tragic and complex. A triple-amputee Air Force veteran, Kolfage’s heroic service—having endured unimaginable sacrifices in the line of duty—contrasts sharply with his conviction for defrauding donors to the "We Build the Wall" campaign. While his actions betrayed public trust, his military sacrifice and lack of prior criminal history provide a compelling argument for clemency. With 17 months already served and millions in restitution ordered, Kolfage has paid a steep price for his missteps. A commutation of his remaining sentence, leaving restitution intact, would affirm the principle that justice can be tempered with mercy. Critics may decry such an act as leniency, but as Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, "To love someone means to see them as God intended them."

Ross Ulbricht: A Sentence Beyond Reason

Ross Ulbricht’s creation of the Silk Road may have been a modern Pandora’s box, but the sentence he received—double life imprisonment plus 40 years—is a stark departure from reason. Over 11 years behind bars for a first-time, non-violent offender underscores a judicial system often skewed by sensationalism. While Ulbricht’s platform facilitated illegal activity, his direct involvement in those crimes was minimal, and allegations of commissioning murders was never charged and remains unproven. Had Ross been charged with commissioning murder my opinion would be very different. Trump’s promise to pardon Ulbricht highlights the importance of consistency in leadership. Commuting Ulbricht’s sentence to time served would not only fulfill a campaign commitment but also signal a commitment to proportionality in justice.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Lessons in Accountability

Sam Bankman-Fried’s meteoric rise and fall in the cryptocurrency world epitomizes the perils of unregulated innovation. Convicted of defrauding investors and sentenced to 25 years, his case raises questions about fairness in financial crimes. Unlike many fraud cases, creditors will all recover more than they lost—an almost unheard-of outcome. Moreover, the primary reason funds were comingled stems from the Biden administration’s refusal to allow companies like FTX access to traditional banking services. This forced Bankman-Fried to move money through his hedge fund, an act that, while improper, was a direct result of systemic barriers and led to the underlying fraud. Compared to Jon Corzine, who faced no criminal penalties for the MF Global scandal that lost $1.6 billion in customer funds, Bankman-Fried’s sentence is unduly harsh. Commuting his sentence to two years with 15 months remaining strikes a balance between accountability and recognizing the regulatory inequities that contributed to the situation.

Edward Snowden: A Hero in Exile

Edward Snowden’s revelations of unconstitutional surveillance programs sparked a global reckoning on privacy and government overreach. Judicial rulings have since validated his disclosures, declaring several NSA programs illegal. While Snowden’s actions broke the law, they also upheld the public’s right to know by exposing illegal mass surveillance programs like the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records, which were later ruled unconstitutional by federal courts. Snowden took great care to ensure that no dangerous or damaging information was leaked by working with responsible journalists like Glenn Greenwald. His aim was not to harm America, but to protect its people and their privacy. Pardoning Snowden would send a powerful message: that America values accountability not just from its citizens, but from its government. After over a decade in exile, Snowden’s punishment has been profound. Bringing him home aligns with the conservative principle that power must always be checked by the consent of the governed.

Julian Assange: Defending Press FreedomJulian Assange’s legal saga, culminating in a plea deal that allowed for his release, highlights the tension between national security and press freedom. This agreement suggests that Assange has already faced significant accountability for his actions, reinforcing the argument that a full pardon would symbolize a commitment to press freedom without undermining the principles of justice. While Assange’s methods have been contentious, his work exposed truths that reshaped public understanding of global conflicts. Pardoning Assange alongside Snowden would reaffirm America’s commitment to transparency and the First Amendment, even when inconvenient.

January 6th Protesters: Turning the Page

The January 6th Capitol breach remains a scar on the nation’s conscience, but the prosecutorial response has been utterly disproportionate. For instance, participants in the summer 2020 riots that caused billions in property damage and targeted federal buildings faced minimal charges or more often were not prosecuted at all. By contrast, January 6th protesters, almost all of whom were non-violent, have faced aggressive sentencing and extended pretrial detentions. This disparity highlights a troubling inconsistency in the application of justice. Hundreds remain incarcerated for non-violent offenses, while similar actions by leftist groups in prior years saw minimal consequences. Trump’s offer of blanket pardons for non-violent participants—and commutations for those convicted of police assaults—would address this disparity while acknowledging the charged atmosphere of that day. It’s a step toward healing a deeply divided nation.

Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro: Clearing the Record

Bannon and Navarro’s convictions symbolize the politicization of justice. Both men served their time and faced consequences for their loyalty to Trump. Pardoning them would clear their records and reinforce the principle that political prosecutions have no place in a constitutional republic.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s presidency, like the cases for clemency examined here, embodies a belief in renewal and the possibility of redemption through justice tempered with mercy. Day one pardons for these individuals would not only correct injustices but also signal a broader commitment to reconciliation, fairness, and the principles of limited government. Clemency is not about erasing wrongdoing; it is about affirming humanity’s capacity for redemption. By exercising this power with wisdom and courage, Trump can set a tone for his administration that blends strength with mercy, reminding the world that America remains a beacon of justice and liberty.

“To pardon is to recognize that, while we must uphold the law, there is always room for compassion and redemption.” ~President Ronald Reagan

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.