The controversial use of the presidential pardon power by former US President Donald Trump has ignited a fierce debate about the limits of executive authority. His actions, widely seen as self-interested and politically motivated, have brought to life the very fears expressed by the Anti-Federalist opponents of the American Constitution centuries ago.
The Ghost of Anti-Federalist Warnings
When the US Constitution was being drafted, a group known as the Anti-Federalists voiced a profound concern. They argued that the office of the President, as designed, held too much concentrated power. Their warnings, penned in the late 18th century, focused on the potential for a chief executive to act in his own interest, unchecked by other branches of government. The recent pardons issued by Donald Trump are now being analysed as a direct reflection of those exact historical abuses the Anti-Federalists cautioned against.
This connection was highlighted in a notable opinion piece by Jamelle Bouie in the New York Times, published on December 5, 2025. The analysis suggests that Trump's approach to pardons was not an anomaly but a manifestation of a deep-seated constitutional vulnerability.
Self-Interest and Political Motives in the Pardon Office
Observers note that several of Trump's pardons and commutations appeared to benefit his close allies, political supporters, and individuals whose cases aligned with his personal or political narratives. This pattern of use moves the pardon power away from its traditional role as a tool of mercy or corrective justice administered in the broader public interest.
Instead, critics argue, it was wielded as an instrument of personal and partisan loyalty. This specific application of presidential authority has raised urgent and uncomfortable questions about the safeguards, or lack thereof, within the constitutional framework to prevent such perceived abuses.
The Urgent Question of Unchecked Executive Authority
The core issue now facing American constitutional scholars and politicians is whether the pardon power is truly without limits. While the text of the Constitution grants the president broad clemency powers, the spirit of the document and the system of checks and balances imply a responsibility to use that power judiciously.
The actions of the Trump presidency have forced a re-examination of what, if any, constitutional or political mechanisms exist to check a president who uses the pardon for blatantly self-serving purposes. The debate centres on whether this represents a dangerous loophole that undermines the rule of law and the principle that no one, not even the president, is above it.
This situation presents a stark modern example of the risks associated with unchecked executive authority. It serves as a case study for democracies worldwide, including India, on the importance of robust institutional checks, even on powers that appear absolute on paper. The echoes from the 1780s are clear: the fears of concentrated power are timeless, and the mechanisms to balance it require constant vigilance.
