Kimberly Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, noted in an email:

Trump seems sympathetic to pardon-seekers who push the claim that the criminal justice system was weaponized against them — much like it was purportedly weaponized against Trump under Biden.

These claims appear to have no grounding in facts and law, which is how the justice system is supposed to work. The historical purposes of the pardon — mercy and amnesty — are being utterly eclipsed by narratives of grievance stemming from being held accountable under the rule of law.

Wehle’s critique goes far beyond this. Pardons in the closing days of Trump’s first term

for the likes of Roger Stone and Paul Manafort smacked of buying silence. This was not entirely unprecedented. George H.W. Bush’s pardons of potential witnesses in the Iran-contra scandal (including Caspar Weinberger, former secretary of defense, Robert C. McFarlane, former national security adviser, and Elliott Abrams, former assistant secretary of state) were criticized on similar grounds.

Trump, Wehle continued, “appears to be using pardons in exchange for personal and political loyalty and also to reward high-value donors and their families. This is a kind of abject, blatant pay-to-play corruption that we haven’t seen before.”

Trump’s pardons reflect his own unique vision of the law.

Dan Kobil, a law professor at Capital University in Ohio, wrote by email:

Trump’s clemency grants show a pattern that is designed to redefine what counts as “real” crime. Fraud and bribery appear to be more “forgivable” crimes for Trump, as long as they are committed by Republican politicians (Michael Grimm) or Democrats who support him (Rod Blagojevich).

This is consistent with his pattern of pardoning corrupt Republican politicians during his first term (e.g., Chris Collins, Duncan Hunter, Steve Stockman, Rick Renzi, Robin Hayes, Mark Siljander, and Randall “Duke” Cunningham).

Defrauding people and cheating on taxes also seem to be low on Trump’s scale of criminal culpability, as the pardons of the Chrisleys and Trump donor Trevor Milton demonstrate.

Overall, Kobil argued,

Trump’s approach to pardoning is a desecration of the pardon power. The framers gave the clemency power to the president in order to allow him to enhance justice. According to Alexander Hamilton, the clemency power was intended to ensure that justice does not wear a “countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” By using the clemency power to excuse criminal behavior by opponents and reward fealty to himself, Trump is perverting the power.

A key question underlying Trump’s pardons is: Are they legal and constitutional? The legal experts I queried on this subject are split, with much of their focus on the Supreme Court’s 2024 6-3 ruling in Trump v. United States that “The nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.”

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority decision “has replaced a presumption of equality before the law with a presumption that the president is above the law for all of his official acts.”

The president, Sotomayor continued, “is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world.” When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution:

Orders the Navy’s SEAL team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

James Sample, a law professor at Hofstra University, argued in an email that some of Trump’s pardons may run into legal difficulty:

While the legality of a president exercising their pardon power may not be in question, President Trump’s use of the pardon power as a bargaining chip for his own financial and political gain appears to run afoul of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

Trump, Sample contended,

has made clear that the best way to receive a pardon from his administration is not to show remorse or repentance for crimes committed, but instead to show unwavering loyalty to the president, shower him with praise, and writing checks. President Trump has made clear that a pardon from him can be bought.

In support of his claim, Sample wrote:

Recently, Trump commuted the sentence of Imaad Zuberi, who donated over $900,000 to President Trump’s first inaugural committee. Zuberi was convicted of falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent and obstructing an investigation into the fund.

Similarly, Trump issued a pardon to Paul Walczak, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to various tax crimes. Unsurprisingly, Walczak’s mother, Elizabeth Fago, raised millions for the Trump campaign and was subsequently nominated to Trump’s National Cancer Advisory Board.

What’s more, President Trump recently pardoned reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, who were convicted of various financial crimes including conspiracy to defraud banks, after their daughter Savannah Chrisley became a vocal supporter of the president, appearing on Lara Trump’s show and delivering a speech at the 2024 Republican convention.

Because of the blanket constitutional authority for presidents to issue pardons and the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision, it is possible that a presidential pardon can be simultaneously legal and profoundly unethical.

Paul Rosenzweig, former deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush and now a lecturer in law at George Washington University, described this strange juxtaposition in an email: “Given the immunity decision by SCOTUS all of Trump’s acts are lawful. They are also corrupt beyond belief and put prior instances of corruption to shame.”