The president's pardon power applies only to federal crimes. However, a president can issue a symbolic "pardon" for a supporter convicted on state charges. While legally void, this action serves as a powerful political signal to followers that the president stands with them, demonstrating a use of the pardon power for pure messaging.

The presidential pardon system, intended as a tool for justice and clemency, has been perverted into a transactional mechanism. It now primarily serves the wealthy and politically connected, diverting resources and attention from its core mission of correcting injustices for ordinary people caught in a flawed system.

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court granted presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts related to their "core constitutional functions," such as pardoning or directing investigations. This protection applies even if the actions are performed in bad faith, creating an unprecedented shield from accountability.

The debate over deploying federal vs. state troops to fight crime is less about the tactic's effectiveness and more about political credit. Democratic governors like Wes Moore are now using their own state troops to achieve the same results, co-opting the policy to frame it as a state-level success.

To counter what he sees as unprecedented corruption and bigotry, Prof. Scott Galloway suggests Democrats should promise a public reckoning for the Trump administration, akin to the Nuremberg trials, arguing their current response is too weak.

Rather than reacting after the fact, a coalition of Democratic state Attorneys General has been actively planning and preparing legal challenges based on potential Trump administration actions detailed in documents like Project 2025. They aim to have complaints ready to file immediately, ensuring they are not "caught flat-footed."

Restoring global trust may require holding a prior administration legally accountable for breaking laws. However, this creates a dangerous paradox: the threat of future prosecution gives incumbents a powerful incentive to subvert democratic processes to remain in power, worsening domestic political instability.

The criminal indictment threat against Fed Chair Jerome Powell is not merely a dispute over central bank independence. It's a tactic to make an example of a high-profile official, signaling to all government employees the consequences of defying the administration and forcing out perceived opponents.

Even if legislation is guaranteed to fail, proposing it now creates a credible future threat that officials will be prosecuted for overreach, serving as a powerful deterrent against current abuses.