Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

The White House denies reports that Trump is looking into pardons

White House Communications Team Reshuffled, With Sean Spicer Resignation And Anthony Scaramucci Appointed Director
White House Communications Team Reshuffled, With Sean Spicer Resignation And Anthony Scaramucci Appointed Director
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

White House officials are trying to discredit a Washington Post story last week that President Donald Trump is exploring whether he could pardon himself.

On Friday, the Post reported that Trump asked advisers whether he could pardon close associates and even himself, setting off speculation among legal experts that such a move could potentially provoke constitutional crisis.

This weekend, the administration has taken the stance it’s just not true. “He’s not going to do that,” said Anthony Scaramucci, the newly appointed White House Communications Director, when asked on CNN’s State of the Union if the president would pardon himself and his relatives over unspecified crimes. Scaramucci claimed that the president “isn’t thinking about pardoning nobody.”

“The president’s not going to have to pardon anybody because the Russian thing is a nonsensical thing,” Scaramucci added.

Also on Sunday morning, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow told ABC’s This Week that there were no conversations in the White House about pardons. “We’re not researching the issue because the issue of pardons is not on the table. There’s nothing to pardon from,” Sekulow said. “We have not and continue to not have conversations with the president of the United States about pardons.”

These accounts flatly contradict the Washington Post story, which reported that Trump had “asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself” in connection with special investigator Robert Mueller’s probe into his campaign ties to Russia. The notion that Trump is even considering pardoning himself has alarmed legal experts, who have pointed out how far the president is straying from precedent. No president in American history has tried issuing a self-pardon, and Trump’s reported willingness to entertain that discussion is shocking in its own right, no matter how preliminary the discussion.

Scaramucci’s defense of Trump comes on the heels of the President himself weighing in publicly on the matter. On Saturday morning, Trump tweeted that there would be no need to issue pardons because the “only crime so far is LEAKS against us,” by which he presumably means his family and administration.

The Post story did stress that all discussions of pardons within Trump’s legal team have been purely theoretical, and gave no hint that pardons for Jared Kushner or Donald Trump Jr. were in the pipeline. Moreover, even according to the initial report in the Post, Trump has no imminent plans to issue a blanket protection to himself.

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,’ ” a close adviser to the president told The Washington Post.

If the Washington Post is right, Trump would be entertaining a breach of historical precedent that could set off a constitutional crisis because there’s a serious possibility that a self-pardon would not be upheld in court. “This is theater of the absurd,” Samuel Gross, a University of Michigan law professor, told Vox’s Sean Illing. “The fact that we’re even talking about it is a measure of how far we’ve fallen under Trump.”

See More:

More in Politics

Politics
The real reason Americans hate the economy so muchThe real reason Americans hate the economy so much
Politics

Did decades of low inflation make the public far more unforgiving when it finally did surge?

By Andrew Prokop
Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
Trump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expectedTrump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expected
Politics

As Trump heads to China, attention and resources are being shifted from Asia to yet another war in the Middle East.

By Joshua Keating
Politics
Are far-right politics just the new normal?Are far-right politics just the new normal?
Politics

Liberals are preparing for a longer war with right-wing populists than they once expected.

By Zack Beauchamp
The Logoff
Flavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA headFlavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA head
The Logoff

Why Marty Makary is out at the FDA, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Virginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymanderVirginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymander
Politics

Democrats just handed the Supreme Court’s Republicans a loaded weapon.

By Ian Millhiser