Convicted felon and President Donald Trump fulfilled his campaign promise to subvert the rule of law on January 20 by signing an executive order granting full pardons to hundreds of individuals convicted of participating in the January 6 Capitol attack.
Trump, who interfered with the Biden Administration for 4 years by trying to run a shadow government that undermined Federal institutions, set out immediately after his inauguration to erase evidence and the public’s memory of his acts of treason.
With the stroke of a pen, he absolved his most fervent supporters, many of whom admitted to or were found guilty by a jury of their peers of attacking law enforcement officers, vandalizing Federal property, and attempting to disrupt the certification of a fair and lawful election.
Critics contend that with his singular act, Trump had effectively abolished the rule of law in the United States, creating a template in which future leaders can not only incite violence but also ensure that their loyalists face no consequences.
The events of January 6 are etched in America’s collective memory, but they have also been heavily whitewashed by right-wing media since 2021.
That day began with a rally near the White House, where Trump – who privately acknowledged his election loss to Joe Biden – and his allies made unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud.
Images from that day showed the crowd, motivated by Trump’s repeated rhetoric, marched to the Capitol, eventually breaching barricades and forcing its way inside. Violent factions took direct aim at those sworn to protect the building.
Officers of the U.S. Capitol Police and the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department were overwhelmed, assaulted, and seriously injured. One infamous photograph, widely shared by major news outlets, showed a rioter striking a fallen officer with a flagpole brandishing a “Back the Blue” flag — the very slogan used to champion law enforcement during the Black Lives Matter protests.
In the days following January 6, 2021, a stark irony emerged. Many of the same individuals who had vocally supported police officers during the George Floyd protests turned on law enforcement when it was convenient for their political aims.
“Back the Blue,” once a rallying cry against criticism by Black Americans of racist police policies, became an afterthought as rioters clad in red MAGA hats pushed through barricades, shattered windows, and confronted the thin line of officers protecting the Capitol.
They inflicted injuries on dozens of officers, with some injuries so severe that some were forced into early retirement. The bodycam footage, images, and first-person accounts from that day left no doubt that it was a hostile attack on the seat of the American government, fueled by Trump’s fiction that the election had been stolen.
Within months, the FBI and the Department of Justice went to work arresting and prosecuting scores of individuals. The judicial process played out in Federal courts across the country, with many defendants pleading guilty or being convicted by juries.
The trials offered a hard look at the planning, motivations, and raw hostility underlying the January 6 attack. Judges, some appointed by past Republican presidents including Trump, decried the violence as antithetical to America’s constitutional order. The process gave hope to Americans that Justice would be served.
Yet the MAGA base, aided by Republican lawmakers, continued to empower Trump, who promised his supporters in numerous pubic statements over months that if they returned him to power he would promptly pardon those “political prisoners” who participated in January 6. It was part of the effort by Trump and the GOP over several years to re-write their responsibility for that disgraceful day, which came to fruition with the pardons he issued on January 20, 2025.
From the outset, Trump faced numerous criminal investigations for his role in the events leading up to January 6. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill formed committees to dig deeper into the day’s planning and funding. The American public thought Trump, at the very least, might face charges of inciting violence or conspiracy to disrupt Congress.
But those hoping for legal accountability were stymied by Trump’s self-serving allies. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of narrow and unprecedented right-wing decisions, afforded Trump broad protections under an expansive view of presidential immunity. While the high court did not explicitly declare that a president could “do no wrong,” critics argue the rulings by SCOTUS effectively laid the groundwork for that very conclusion.
The idea of near-absolute immunity for a president, or former president, meant he was a king and above the law. The decision was a willful misreading of both constitutional law and the facts surrounding January 6. If a president can claim that everything he does while in office is immune from scrutiny, who is left to hold that president accountable for abuses of power?
That unfettered executive authority culminated in the pardons issued on January 20. According to the text of the executive order, every individual “unfairly prosecuted” in the wake of the so-called “January 6 protest” was granted a full and unconditional pardon, restoring all rights and privileges.
The order’s language echoed the statements made by Trump’s surrogates over the past two years, branding the events of January 6 as a peaceful gathering that simply got “out of hand” on rare moments, rather than the violent disruption of a fundamental democratic process. The pardons reframed the hundreds of convicted felons as martyrs in a political struggle, painting them as victims of government overreach rather than perpetrators of an attempted insurrection.
Notably absent from the order was any acknowledgment of the crimes for which those individuals were convicted, like assaulting police officers with improvised weapons, shattering Capitol windows, threatening the lives of elected officials, and disregarding repeated orders to stand down.
The explicit denial of wrongdoing, combined with the absolution provided by the Executive Branch, underscored the broader concern about a president’s ability to shield allies from consequences. If the Supreme Court’s interpretation of presidential immunity allows a Chief Executive to direct or incite unlawful activities, and then subsequently grant clemency to those who carry them out, the rule of law ceases to exist.
Constitutional scholars from across the ideological spectrum have reacted in alarm. In the Federalist Papers, the framers grappled with how to avoid granting a single individual too much power. The solution was to separate powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, creating checks and balances.
Yet what the country has witnessed in recent months is the unraveling of those safeguards. A Supreme Court majority that defers heavily to presidential prerogative can undermine Congress’s power to investigate and the Justice Department’s authority to prosecute. When executive pardons are used not out of mercy, but out of political expedience, they become a tool for consolidating power, rather than a mechanism for justice.
Those pardoned on January 20 walked free, many boasting of their “victory.” Some have taken to social media to thank the president, praising him for “finally setting the record straight.” Those same individuals were recorded on January 6 chanting slogans that threatened lawmakers with death – like hanging then Vice President Mike Pence for not throwing out the election results and declaring Trump president.
To see those violent and criminal figures now lauded as heroes by a faction of the American right has left communities, victims of violence, and even some rank-and-file Republicans in dismay.
What compounds the public outrage is the sense that the pardons were the logical endgame from the start. By openly embracing the false narrative of a stolen election, Trump seeded anger among his base.
On January 6, that anger erupted into violence. Throughout the ensuing investigations and trials, Trump hinted he would “take care” of those standing trial if he returned to power. By pardoning them, he made good on that promise, sending the message that loyalty to him would yield immunity from the law’s reach.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is how law enforcement officers, once revered by the same faction that now vilifies them as a political necessity, have been left feeling betrayed. In statements given to various news outlets, officers who served on the front lines of the Capitol that day expressed dismay, heartbreak, and anger.
They see a system that was supposed to protect them has instead released their attackers. For a nation that regularly honors the sacrifices made by the men and women in uniform, the outcome is nothing short of a moral stain.
The pardons signed on January 20 are more than a political ploy, they represent a fundamental test of whether our constitutional system can survive leaders who exploit its vulnerabilities. The willful erasure of crimes committed in broad daylight, captured on live television, and corroborated by hundreds of witnesses, lays bare the fragility of America.
A republic that once prided itself on the idea of no person being above the law, is now a place where individuals of power are above the law. And they were elected to those positions by American citizens. Trump has effectively used the structure of democracy to end democracy in the United States.
© Photo
Evan Vucci (AP) and Matt Rourke (AP)
