Trump Says He Can Pardon Himself. Here's What Would Actually Happen.

In 1974, the Justice Department put it in writing. A president cannot pardon himself. This weekend, President Trump was asked if he has that power. Do you think you have the power to pardon yourself? I do. And that wasn't the biggest news. In the same interview, Trump said he plans a wave of pardons for the people around him. So what can a pardon actually do? What can't it do? And could a president really pardon himself? The answers are stranger than you'd think. Here's what happened. On Sunday night, 60 Minutes aired an interview with President Trump, days after Republicans lost both chambers of Congress. In a part of the interview that didn't air on TV, Do you expect to issue a lot of pardons when you leave office? Yes, I do. I intend to issue tremendous numbers of pardons. In fact, I say oftentimes, anybody that got within 1,000 miles of the Oval Office, because— Then came the bigger question. Do you expect to pardon yourself? I don't, but I certainly— Do you think you have the power to pardon yourself? I do. Here's why this matters right now. In January, Democrats take over the House. They're already promising investigations of Trump's inner circle. A week ago, Trump said he would pardon people preemptively if I needed to. And he's hinted the list could include Elon Musk. So can he really do all of this? To answer that, you have to understand one of the strangest powers in the Constitution. The pardon power is one sentence long. The president shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. That's it. No approval from Congress, no review by the courts. And in 1866, the Supreme Court made it even broader. It ruled that a pardon can come at any time after a crime is committed, even before anyone is charged. That's what makes a preemptive pardon possible. For most of American history, preemptive pardons were rare. That changed fast. In December 2024, President Biden pardoned his son Hunter, covering more than a decade of possible offenses. Then, on his last morning in office, Biden preemptively pardoned Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and the members of the January 6th committee. Minutes before Trump was sworn in, he pardoned five members of his own family. Biden's reason? He said they could face politically motivated prosecutions. Hours later, President Trump used the same power on a massive scale. He pardoned or commuted the sentences of roughly 1,500 people charged over January 6th. So when Trump says he'll protect his own people, his supporters point to Biden. Biden did it first, they argue, and Trump is simply shielding loyal staff from political revenge. His critics say pardoning your own team, in advance, puts them beyond the reach of the law. Either way, the precedent now exists, except for one question that has never been answered. August 1974. Richard Nixon is days away from resigning over Watergate, and his lawyers are looking for a way out. On August 5th, Nixon's own Justice Department weighed in. Its Office of Legal Counsel wrote that, "...under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the president cannot pardon himself." Four days later, Nixon resigned. One month after that, his successor, Gerald Ford, went on television and granted Nixon a full, free, and absolute pardon for any federal crimes he committed or may have committed as president. The backlash was immediate. Ford's approval rating fell from 71% to about 50. Two years later, he lost the presidency to Jimmy Carter. Many historians believe the pardon was a big reason why. So Nixon never had to test the self-pardon, and neither has anyone since. In 2018, Trump wrote that he has the absolute right to pardon myself, but no president has ever done it, and no court has ever ruled on it. If one ever did, the Justice Department's opinion says it's invalid. But that opinion isn't law. It would come down to the Supreme Court, the same court that ruled in 2024 that presidents have broad immunity for official acts. But here's what almost nobody talks about. Even a perfectly valid pardon has limits, and some of them could backfire. Limit number one, impeachment. The Constitution excludes it by name. A pardon can't stop the House from impeaching an official or the Senate from removing them. That's why the Pete Hegseth fight playing out this week is beyond the reach of any pardon. Limit number two, state crimes. A presidential pardon only covers federal offenses. A state prosecutor in New York or Georgia doesn't have to care. Limit number three, the future. A pardon can only cover crimes that have already happened. It can't be a license for what comes next. And limit number four is the strangest. In 1915, the Supreme Court said a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and accepting one is a confession of it. That case started when a New York newspaper editor refused a pardon from President Woodrow Wilson rather than look guilty. Then there's the trap. The Fifth Amendment lets you refuse to testify if your answers could incriminate you. But once you're pardoned for federal crimes, you can't be prosecuted for them. So in many cases, you can't plead the Fifth about them anymore. Which means a Democratic House could subpoena pardoned officials and force them to answer questions under oath. Refuse? And that's contempt of Congress, a brand new crime that the old pardon doesn't cover. Lie? And that's perjury. A pardon can stop a prosecution. It can't stop the questions. So what happens next? For now, the pardon power is Trump's alone, and it lasts until he leaves office in January, 2029. Congress can't block a pardon. Courts have almost never second-guessed one. And once it's granted, most legal experts say no future president can take it back. Trump himself has tested that idea. He's declared some of Biden's pardons void because they were signed by Autopen. Most legal experts say a president has no power to cancel a predecessor's pardons. But if that claim ever held up, every pardon Trump signs could face the same question. Here's the bottom line. In 1974, the system answered the question of a president's power over his own fate with a resignation and a pardon from someone else. 52 years later, the question is back. And this time, it may not be answered by a lawyer's memo. It may be answered by a president. So tell me in the comments, should a president be able to pardon himself? Yes or no? And if you want to know what happens when the House votes on Pete Hegseth this week, subscribe so you don't miss it.