With new questions about his acuity, Biden's pardon choices should be revisited
The five of us have something in common. We were all convicted of federal crimes over the last 12 years, and we all completed applications asking for pardons from former President Joe Biden. Unfortunately, at 12:01 p.m. on President Trump's inauguration day, all five of us received emails informing us that our applications had been denied and we would have to reapply under the new administration.
We have all completed our sentences, so there is no question of having those shortened. What is at stake, in some of our cases, is our ability to make a living, sustain our families and become productive members of our communities again.
Presidential pardons have historically been a source of both relief and controversy. The pardon power was intended as a mechanism to provide justice and mercy to citizens for their offenses, because of our flawed humanity and because our justice system, like all human systems, is imperfect. While designed as a mechanism for justice and mercy, concerns arise when pardons appear self-serving — especially when granted by a president whose mental acuity has been questioned.
Biden's pardons of close associates and family members raised serious ethical and legal concerns, particularly when others in similar situations were denied pardons. The issue at hand was not about his legal right to grant pardons, but whether his cognitive condition affected the integrity of such decisions. This is particularly noteworthy since Biden used the full Nixon-era formula in granting "full, complete, absolute and unconditional" pardons to members of his family, covering a lengthy period of time and without citing any specific alleged wrongdoing on their part.
Reports citing Biden's struggles with memory lapses, confusion during public engagements, and limited unscripted interactions have led to growing skepticism about his ability to make impartial, well-reasoned choices. If his cognitive decline influenced these pardons, then others denied pardons on similar grounds deserve reconsideration.
Biden, despite advocating for criminal justice reform, denied pardons to many nonviolent drug offenders and individuals who had applied for pardons citing unjust sentencing. And at the same time, relatives of the president, whose cases raised potential conflicts of interest, were granted pardons. The broader justice system often denies appeals based on procedural technicalities, even as high-profile figures with political ties are able to benefit from executive pardons.
If Biden's mental capacity is in question, Congress should consider requiring competency reviews for presidential pardon decisions. And those denied pardons should be given a second chance. A justice system built on impartiality cannot allow preferential treatment, particularly when personal ties may cloud judgment.
No one disputes the president's constitutional discretion in wielding the pardon power. But pardons must be given fairly, justly, free of undue influence. If Biden's family and associates benefited from a decision process that did not include his full understanding or consent, justice demands that others denied pardons receive reconsideration. Each of us respectfully requests it of President Trump now, for ourselves and for all those Americans who will need mercy and forgiveness in the future.
Warren Ballentine is a former attorney and radio host with more than 3 million listeners. Jesse Jackson Jr. is a former Democratic congressman representing Illinois. Michael Cohen is President Trump's former attorney. Michael Rothenberg is a rabbi and was a lawyer and part-time judge in DeKalb County, Ga. Dr. Michael Jones is a cardiologist in New Orleans. All five were convicted of non-violent federal crimes between 2013 and 2023 and have served their sentences.