The Case for Preemptive Pardons in Today's Political Landscape

Dr. Chelsea McGee

Let’s start with the facts. In his final days, President Biden issued a series of preemptive pardons, covering individuals like Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and even members of the January 6th Committee. Now, these weren’t based on existing investigations or indictments; they were clearly responses to what Biden viewed as a looming threat—the threat of political retribution from an incoming Trump administration. And, on the surface, it sounds, well, protective, right? Shielding public servants from targeted attacks? But—and this is key—it kicks open a whole new set of questions, especially about fairness in our justice system.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

We’ve seen this before. The most famous case? Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon. He called it an act of closure for the nation, a way to move past the deep divisions of Watergate. But even then, people were divided. Did that pardon ensure stability, or did it send a message that some individuals—like Nixon—are, in effect, untouchable? Honestly, the parallels to Biden’s pardons are striking. Except, this time, the stakes might be even higher. Let's pause and take a look at this clip showing President Ford's Speech when he pardoned Richard Nixon. Play this clip.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

Think about what these pardons mean legally. They’re a preemptive blanket that assumes potential abuse of power by a future administration—specifically, the Trump administration. Some argue, and not without merit, that this undermines the very premise of our legal system. You know, the idea that no one is above the law. By granting immunity before formal accusations are even made, the process feels, well, almost defensive. And, frankly, that's where we start hitting ethical turbulence. Are we prioritizing the protection of individuals, or are we undermining the rule of law altogether?

Dr. Chelsea McGee

Now don’t get me wrong, there’s a precedent here. And Biden’s calculus wasn’t random. But when you examine it through a legal lens, it raises fundamental questions about checks and balances. If presidents can issue preemptive pardons for actions that haven’t been scrutinized in court, does that create a tiered system of justice? Where some people are presumed innocent while others are left vulnerable to the whims of those in power? It’s complex, you know? There’s no easy answer here.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

And here’s something I’ve been dwelling on. These decisions don’t just live in the moment. They have long-term consequences—for precedent, for public perception, and for the trust we place in these institutions. When we debate presidential pardons, we’re not just talking about today’s headlines. We’re talking about the integrity of the framework, the framework of democracy. And whether you agree with Biden’s actions or not, you’ve gotta admit—it’s a risky move for any leader.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

So, yeah, these preemptive pardons might have spared individuals from hypothetically unjust prosecutions. But have we opened Pandora’s box when it comes to defining the scope of presidential power?

Dr. Chelsea McGee

Alright, the conversation takes an interesting turn when we talk about autopen—this, mechanical device that replicates a person’s signature. You’ve probably heard Trump’s claim that President Biden’s use of an autopen to sign those preemptive pardons somehow invalidates them. But here’s the thing—autopen signatures have been around for centuries. Thomas Jefferson, believe it or not, used them. And legally? They’ve been upheld over and over in both legislation and executive actions.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

Now, let’s get into the why. The autopen isn’t about bypassing accountability—it’s about efficiency. Modern governance operates on tight deadlines. Presidents are required to sign an overwhelming number of documents, so relying on autopen can be, you know, just practical. Historically, courts have supported its use, reinforcing that what really matters isn’t the physical signature, but the intent behind it. And to be fair, Biden’s case doesn’t seem to break new ground here.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

What’s striking to me is how this kind of criticism—about how signatures are rendered—shines a light on our broader concerns with technology’s role in governance. Does it symbolize progress and pragmatism, or does it feel, well, impersonal? I wonder if the controversy stems as much from our cultural preferences as it does from legal debates. People tend to trust handwritten signatures; they feel more human, more deliberate, even though, legally, their authority is the same.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

But let’s pivot for a moment to the legal challenge Trump seems to be hinting at. Would it hold water in court? Experts overwhelmingly say no. The Constitution grants presidents the clemency power with few limits, and there’s no clause that specifies a pen or a person must physically sign the document. Lower court rulings have consistently upheld these signatures. So, while Trump’s claims might excite headlines, having them stand in court is a whole other story.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

And here’s something worth thinking about. The debate over autopen isn’t just a quirky sideshow; it’s fundamentally about trust in government processes. When leaders rely on automated tools, are we more inclined to question their decisions? And does the practicality of the technology—saving time, preventing backlog—outweigh the optics of it? It's fascinating how something as routine as signing a document can tap into such deep anxieties about power and authenticity.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

So, while the legalities of autopen seem pretty clear-cut, this issue has broader implications. It’s not just about the legitimacy of Biden’s pardons; it’s also about how we reconcile tradition with modern governance tools. To me, that’s the real conversation here—how technology shapes our democracy without eroding its core values. And honestly, I think we’re only scratching the surface.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

When we talk about pardons in today’s political climate, we’re not just examining legal nuances—we’re exposing a much deeper conversation about power, fairness, and accountability. Let’s look at recent trends. President Biden’s preemptive actions sparked intense debate, but they’re just a piece of this evolving puzzle. Whether it’s Biden’s pardons, Trump’s promises of clemency, or even historical moments like Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon, we’re seeing clemency become a tool not just of mercy, but of political maneuvering.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

And that paradigm shift raises some hard questions. Should the pardon power, as sweeping and unchecked as it is in the Constitution, be revisited? Or is this just the natural progression of a system meant to balance justice with compassion? For decades, legal experts have cautioned that leaving this authority unchallenged could transform clemency into a shield for political allies rather than a reprieve for rehabilitated offenders. And what does that mean for trust—public trust—in our institutions? Our democracy?

Dr. Chelsea McGee

Here’s the thing. Clemency, at its heart, was designed for extraordinary circumstances, for acts of grace where conventional justice seemed too rigid or unforgiving. That’s its beauty, its purpose, right? But now, when we see it applied as a tool to preempt hypothetical abuse or to insulate administrations from potential fallout, it starts to feel... well, transactional. It risks becoming less about fairness and more about leverage.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

Let’s not forget that this is a bipartisan issue. Congressional Democrats have echoed their discomfort with Biden’s expansive clemency actions, while some Republicans argue Trump’s broad pardons for January 6 rioters effectively normalized a dangerous precedent. And as we zoom out, the calls for reform are growing. Ideas like requiring more oversight or even judicial reviews for certain clemency acts have started gaining traction—but of course, any meaningful change would take years of political will.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

One perspective that resonates with me is how clemency interacts with accountability. If presidents can unilaterally pardon friends, family, or political allies, what safeguards exist to ensure that justice isn’t selectively applied? It’s the ethical tension we can’t ignore. And it’s not theoretical—it impacts real people, both those granted immunity and those left to face uneven reprisals under the same legal framework. Because let’s be real—political optics often overshadow fairness, and that imbalance chips away at public trust more than we realize.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

So, where do we draw the line? This isn’t just about revisiting the pardon power itself, but about the broader implications for checks and balances. How do we ensure that clemency reinforces democracy rather than creating this tiered system of protections? Some might say the solution lies in transparency, others in limiting scope, but what remains clear is that this isn’t just a legal conversation—it’s a moral one too. And to move forward, we’ve got to tackle these questions head-on, no matter how uncomfortable they might be.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

And that’s where we’ll leave it for today, folks. This conversation on preemptive pardons has taken us through history, legality, ethics, and, you know, some unsettling realities about where we stand as a democracy. But the story doesn’t end here—because it’s not just about the past or present. It’s about how we decide to move forward, together, informed, questioning, and holding power accountable. Always.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

So, I want to thank you—not just for listening, but for thinking critically, for being part of this space where complexity isn’t something we shy away from. If today’s episode resonated, if it challenged you—or even raised new questions—I’d love to hear from you. Subscribe, drop a comment, share it, let’s keep this dialogue growing. Because, after all, those conversations—the ones that push us to reflect, to care, to act—they’re what truly make the difference.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

And I’ll say this—I deeply believe that independent media, media that serves the people rather than pandering to narratives, is one of our strongest tools for change. If you feel the same way, if you value what we’re building here at *The Real 4 one one*, consider supporting us. Whether it’s following on social media, subscribing to our newsletter, or joining us on platforms like Substack—it all helps us dig deeper, stand taller, and bring you the stories that matter most.

Dr. Chelsea McGee

Alright, as always—stay informed, stay bold, and most importantly, stay real. Until next time, I’m Dr. Chelsea McGee, and this has been *The Real 4 one one*. Take care, everyone.