In a wide-ranging interview on “60 Minutes” on Nov. 2, President Donald Trump pretended not to know about Binance founder Chao Changpeng, the crypto billionaire he pardoned, even though he pleaded guilty in 2023 to violating the Bank Secrecy Act for failing to comply with anti-money laundering procedures and was sentenced to four months in prison.
For those who think this is a minor or commonplace crime, consider that the US government has accused him of causing “serious harm to the national security of the United States” and said he “violated the laws of the United States on an unprecedented scale.” In the pursuit of profit, Binance’s money laundering practices enabled “funds to flow through the platform to terrorists, cybercriminals, and child abusers.” Terrorists also included Hamas and al-Qaeda. Why did President Trump pardon these criminals?
President Trump said he was told the indictment of the cryptocurrency mogul was an example of a “Biden witch hunt.” President Trump said that Zhao had been “treated really badly by the Biden administration” and that he had “no idea who he is,” but at the same time acknowledged that “he is a success.” Skeptics doubt Trump’s explanation. What about self-aggrandizement as President Trump’s motive for pardoning Cho? Mr. Zhao’s company has done business with World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency company owned by Mr. Trump’s sons Eric Jr. and Donald Jr. While seeking clemency, Mr. Zhao hired lawyers and lobbyists with ties to the Trump administration and struck deals with Mr. Trump’s sons that are expected to generate tens of millions of dollars a year for the Trump family for years to come.
When “60 Minutes” host Norah O’Donnell asked President Trump if he was worried about “the emergence of corruption,” Trump replied, “I’d rather not have you ask a question. But I have asked a question.” Mr. Trump stood alongside his sons as they expanded the family’s cryptocurrency business in 2024. The specter of self-aggrandizement, or more specifically, “quid pro quo” pardons, once again raises the need to amend the Constitution to check the pardon power constitutionally vested in the president.
Various presidents have granted pardons, but have understandably faced backlash. When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974 for “all” crimes he had “committed or may have committed” since his election, he sought, in his words, to free the nation from the paralysis of Watergate and to spare Nixon from potential prosecution and further humiliation for his family. Ford declared to America that “the rule of law has won.” On the contrary, the Nixon pardon nullified the application of the rule of law. Had Nixon been tried and convicted for his misconduct, perhaps Ford might have found grounds to pardon the disgraced former president, but by granting Nixon a pretrial pardon all he accomplished was exonerating the president of Watergate. Americans were deprived of the opportunity to learn whether the rule of law and the criminal justice system can oust an errant president, and whether the rule of law can gain widespread support if a president is forced to face a criminal trial.
A few years ago, it seemed to me that Nixon’s pardon was enough to justify a constitutional amendment to check the president’s pardon power. In a peer-reviewed academic paper, I argued in favor of a constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Walter Mondale in 1974 that would have given Congress the power to check the apparently impermissible presidential pardons. Mondale’s proposal states: “No pardon granted by the President to any individual under Article II, Section 2 shall be ineffective if Congress, by resolution, with the consent of two-thirds of the members of each house, disavows the grant of the pardon within 180 days after its issuance.”
In reality, a presidential pardon is unlikely to be of much concern to Congress, who would likely intervene to block it. Only a controversial pardon would raise deep concerns in Congress. Mr. Trump’s pardon for Mr. Zhao is truly a pardon. Enactment of the Mondale proposal is necessary because his self-aggrandizing exercise of constitutional power aimed at appeasing justice is fraught with conflicts of interest. Congress has drawn scrutiny as it questions the motives behind pardons for convicted criminals and investments meant to enrich the presidential family. Even without Mondale’s proposal, the specter of corruption at the heart of President Trump’s pardon of Zhao deserves scrutiny.
Dr. David Adler is the director of the Alturas Institute, which promotes constitutional law, civic education, and equal protection.
