In a significant political move, House Democratic lawmakers issued a report on a Tuesday claiming that former President Donald Trump’s federal pardons and clemency grants could potentially negate over $1.3 billion in payments owed to victims and the federal government. This report has stirred controversy and frustration among critics, particularly members of the Democratic Party, who assert that Trump’s use of pardons has benefited his political allies at the direct expense of justice. Such actions, they argue, undermine the obligations that individuals convicted of crimes have towards their victims and taxpayers.
The report, which has been characterized by House Judiciary Committee Democrats, draws from cases that involve nearly 1,600 individuals and finds its basis in publicly accessible court documents alongside data from the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s official website. While the sum of $1.3 billion appears significant, uncertainties remain regarding how much of this amount could have actually been collected from defendants prior to the issuance of the pardons. It is reported that ongoing legal disputes surrounding some defendants may further complicate the collection of these restitution payments.
In general legal practice, once a defendant has satisfied their restitution and fines, it becomes challenging for them to reclaim that money, even if they subsequently receive a presidential pardon. However, loopholes exist that seem to assist particular recipients of Trump’s pardons. For instance, if a defendant was contesting their case when the pardon was granted or was still in discussions about financial settlement terms, this situation may work to their advantage as noted in various court records.
Take the case of Trevor Milton, the founder of an electric vehicle startup, who managed to evade a restitution payment due to ongoing negotiations regarding his restitution amount when he received a pardon from Trump in March. According to court records, Judge Edgardo Ramos had mandated Milton to pay restitution due to significant losses incurred by his victims stemming from an investment scheme; losses reportedly reached into the hundreds of millions.
Milton’s legal representatives argued in court that Trump’s pardon encompassed “financial aspects of the conviction,” and they even contended that the court should reimburse him for a $300 fee he had already paid. This situation sparked further questions among Democratic lawmakers who noted in their report that the Justice Department did not furnish them with exact figures regarding any collections made related to the cited $1.3 billion.
In response to the Democratic report, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields expressed disdain, stating, “The summer interns working for House Democrats must be busy writing and printing pointless letters that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.” Fields defended Trump’s actions, asserting that the former president is making efforts to rectify perceived political injustices through careful deliberation on vetted cases.
A significant portion of the backlash against Trump’s pardons relates specifically to those defendants charged in connection with the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Nearly all defendants associated with this event received pardons, which, according to the report, have resulted in the dismissal of at least $3 million owed in restitution related to assaults on law enforcement officers and the vandalization of Capitol property.
Despite court arguments from federal prosecutors indicating that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would not consider altering previously paid restitution amounts following a pardon—including those concerning January 6 defendants—some individuals recently pardoned still find themselves embroiled in legal challenges that might allow them to avoid financial penalties. Legal documents indicate that the Justice Department asserts that restitution orders issued by judges are final, establishing that payments made by convicted defendants remain non-recoverable unless acted upon by Congress or higher courts.
As a result, many individuals who participated in the January 6 events are unlikely to reclaim the restitution amounts—often $2,000 or more—already submitted to the U.S. Treasury to cover damages incurred to the Capitol building. Court records reveal that in rare instances, January 6 defendants may find relief from court-mandated restitution and fines, albeit this is not the norm.
In the specific jurisdiction of federal court in Washington, D.C., where cases associated with January 6 were adjudicated, a few pardoned individuals are petitioning judges for the return of their restitution payments. Notably, the DOJ has supported aiding these requests when defendants had pending appeals, yet courts have been slow to make definitive decisions. The outcomes for these cases rely ultimately on judicial interpretation, as demonstrated in the case of John Earle Sullivan, another January 6 defendant, where a federal judge recently ruled against him in attempts to regain $62,800 forfeited to the government from the sale of footage depicting the riot.