**No Kings: The Case for Repealing the Presidential Pardon Power**
At the molten core of the idea to abolish the presidential pardon power sit two problems—one legal and one political.
### The Legal Hurdle
The legal challenge is straightforward: Congress can’t simply pass a bill to rescind the pardon power. The Constitution, not statutory law, grants that authority to the president in Article II. Removing it would require an old-school Article V amendment, demanding supermajority support—two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Good luck achieving that in a country where the Senate often can’t find 60 votes to reopen the government after food stamps have run out.
And that’s the easier problem.
### The Political Blockade
There’s no universe in which lawmakers, especially those enmeshed in an autocratic personality cult, would dare deprive their leader of one of his most coveted autocratic possessions. The pardon power is Trump’s most kingly authority, both by tradition and through Supreme Court precedent, which has placed minimal limits on how he wields it.
It’s also the linchpin of his “friends/enemies” approach to governance. Presidential clemency gives Trump leverage, allowing him to extract any corrupt favor he desires from those facing federal legal trouble. It’s hard to imagine Trump parting with this “God-like” privilege—even for tariffs. And it’s even harder to picture Republicans in Congress or state legislatures snatching such a precious power from the “man-baby-in-chief.”
But what if they don’t have to?
### A Proposal Worth Considering
Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch News, recently floated a provocative idea: “We really need a constitutional amendment to limit presidential pardon power—even if it is only possible to pass it after Trump’s term. The founders obviously never envisioned any president using it this brazenly and corruptly while remaining impervious to impeachment.”
That’s a concept worth exploring: Repeal the pardon power—effective January 20, 2029.
If you’re wondering whether it’s constitutional to attach date restrictions to amendments, consider this: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution delayed the banning of the slave trade until 1808 to appease slave states. More recently, the 22nd Amendment exempted then-sitting president Harry Truman from the two-term limit it imposed on future presidents. Congress could take the same approach with executive clemency.
**Sample language:**
*“The power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States is hereby repealed. But this amendment shall not apply to any person holding the office of president when this amendment was proposed by the Congress.”*
But could this pass? Let’s examine the case for and against repeal.
—
## The Case for Repeal
**Republican Resistance**
Republicans are currently the main obstacle to pardon reform. For repeal to stand a chance, two things have to happen:
1. The need for reform must become undeniable.
2. The rationale shouldn’t rest entirely—nor even mostly—on Trump’s past abuses.
The former has already happened. The latter could be achieved with the right messaging.
**Trump’s Abuses Make the Case**
Less than a year into Trump 2.0, his corrupt use of the pardon power is already undeniable. While his initial pardons of January 6 insurrectionists gratified his base, subsequent acts of clemency have mostly benefited well-connected cronies whose crimes lack even the twisted “populist” appeal of the J6ers.
The corruption is flagrant. George Santos became the 10th prominent Trump loyalist absolved of criminal wrongdoing in recent months. More eyebrow-raising was the commutation of sentences for Tennessee Republican Glen Casada and his aide, both convicted of corruption. Most recently, Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao, the former Binance CEO, whose company happened to boost a Trump business venture. When asked why, the president flatly replied, “I don’t know who he is.”
Republicans aren’t publicly defending these choices, but they aren’t blind to what’s happening. The pardon power has devolved from a tool of mercy to a means of propagating injustice. If repeal could be voted on by secret ballot, it would likely pass in a heartbeat.
**How to Convince Republicans?**
The strategy is simple: Make the case about future Democratic abuse. Joe Biden, by pardoning his son and other family members, inadvertently gave repeal advocates a bipartisan example. If neither side is willing to punish its own president for abusing clemency, the only answer is to take that power away from everyone.
**Whataboutism and Mutual Fear**
Republicans can sell the idea not as a rebuke of Trump, but as a preventative measure against the next Hunter Biden, or an imagined future “autopen presidency.” Conservatives, fearful that Democrats will use the federal government as a legal arsenal, might be happy to forgo the pardon power before Democrats reclaim the White House.
Trump himself might relish being the last president with pardon powers—a special privilege for a “special boy.” His interest in government ceases the moment he’s not its star. Why should he care about powers he’ll never wield again?
**Why Should Democrats Agree?**
Democrats, for their part, would gain some comfort knowing future Republican presidents can’t grant impunity to cronies as party favors, regardless of who the next GOP standard-bearer is. Tackling the issue now, before either side knows whom it will affect, would make prospective repeal more palatable.
Additionally, making the repeal effective after Trump would shine a harsh spotlight on every further pardon he grants. Each unethical act would demonstrate the nation’s need to change the Constitution.
The reality is that repeal can’t happen while Trump is still president. Neither party will want to remove it once they know their own president is next in line to wield it. The only window is now—before 2029.
—
## The Case Against Repeal
**Timelines and Political Realities**
But “bust” is usually the safer bet in American politics. Constitutional amendments take time. For instance, the 22nd Amendment took four years for enough states to ratify after Congress passed it.
Imagine that, come November 2028, the amendment needs only a handful more state ratifications. If J.D. Vance is the new president-elect, would red states risk crossing him by supporting the repeal? Unlikely. Worse, if Trump tries for a third term, his supporters would see repeal as an act of profound disloyalty.
Even if Trump isn’t running, efforts to restrain executive clemency during his term will provoke awkward questions for Republicans: If the power is that problematic, why not end it immediately? They’ll want to avoid those debates.
**Democratic Dilemmas**
For Democrats, the problem is obvious. Why support ending the worst abuser’s power only after his presidency? To many progressives, it’s like outlawing murder but grandfathering in Ted Bundy.
Some will argue that stripping the next Democratic president’s ability to show mercy, especially after years of Trumpist abuse, is self-defeating. Worse, giving Trump free reign until 2029 could incentivize him to ramp up the corruption—perhaps granting preemptive pardons to every ICE employee, for instance.
—
## A Confidence-Building Measure
Despite these obstacles, there’s a meta-argument for at least considering a repeal amendment: it could serve as a helpful confidence-building measure for further bipartisan efforts to restore congressional authority.
In diplomatic parlance, confidence-building measures allow warring parties to develop trust—making cooperation on bigger projects easier. Since both parties have abused the pardon power and both now fear how it might be further abused, repealing it is a natural first step.
If Republicans and Democrats can cooperate on disabling presidential clemency, they might build momentum for additional reforms reigning in executive power: tariffs, war powers, and the Insurrection Act, for example, could be tackled via statute.
This mutual disarmament is the only real way to start “un-Duma-fying” Congress and returning it to its Article I role. 2029 may be too late to begin, but better late than never.
—
**The Bottom Line**
The presidential pardon has become a tool of corruption, not mercy. Abolishing it won’t be easy, but there are ways both parties could come to see the wisdom—provided the case is framed not as a rebuke to this president, but as a safeguard for the next. If Americans ever hope to end kingly powers in the White House, building trust and mutual restraint between the parties is an essential first step.
**Let the real work of ending presidential impunity begin.**
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/boilingfrogs/presidential-pardon-power-congress-constitutional-amendment/