🔥 BIDEN MULLED A TRUMP PARDON, REPORT SAYS — BUT THE DECISION HE ULTIMATELY MADE COULD HAVE CHANGED EVERYTHING… |
BIDEN SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED PARDONING TRUMP IN 2023 - TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CALLS IT PROOF OF DOJ 'WEAPONIZATION,' BUT COX'S ACCOUNT DOESN'T ESTABLISH THAT
A newly published account from Utah Gov. Spencer Cox has revealed an extraordinary private conversation from the summer of 2023: then-President Joe Biden told the Republican governor that he had already been thinking about the possibility of pardoning Donald Trump.
The revelation is real, politically explosive and likely to fuel years of argument over the criminal cases brought against Trump during Biden's presidency.
According to Cox's account, published by The Atlantic from his forthcoming book, the conversation took place on August 9, 2023, inside the presidential limousine in Salt Lake City. Cox suggested that Biden pardon Trump as a way to interrupt what he feared was becoming a cycle of political retaliation.
Cox says Biden responded that he had 'actually considered this for a while,' said he and Jill Biden had recently discussed the idea at length and told the governor he would seriously consider it.
The current Trump White House has seized on that disclosure as evidence that Biden knew the justice system had been weaponized against his political opponent.
That is a politically powerful interpretation. It is not what Cox's account itself proves.
Cox's story establishes that Biden considered using the pardon power to reduce political tensions. It does not establish that Biden admitted the Trump prosecutions were fabricated, that he personally ordered them, or that he believed Trump was innocent.
The Conversation Happened on August 9, 2023
The date matters because it clarifies exactly what legal landscape Biden and Cox were discussing.
By August 9, Trump was already the defendant in three criminal proceedings.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had charged him in New York state court over business records connected to the Stormy Daniels payment.
Special Counsel Jack Smith had brought a federal classified-documents case in Florida in June and a separate federal election-related indictment in Washington on August 1.
The Georgia election case had not yet been filed. Fulton County prosecutors indicted Trump and 18 other defendants five days later, on August 14.
So Biden and Cox were speaking at a moment when Trump was already facing one state prosecution and two federal prosecutions, with a fourth case visibly approaching.
Cox Was Proposing an 'Off Ramp,' Not Making a Finding of Innocence
Cox's stated reason for proposing the pardon is central to understanding the story.
He was not a Trump loyalist in 2023. He had never voted for Trump and hoped Republicans would nominate someone else in 2024.
What worried Cox was the possibility that prosecuting a former president who was also the leading opposition candidate would deepen national polarization and encourage future administrations to answer prosecution with prosecution.
He told Biden the proposal might sound crazy, but argued that an act of clemency could reduce the political temperature.
The Atlantic describes Cox's project as an attempt to interrupt a cycle of partisan retribution.
That rationale resembles a longstanding theory of presidential clemency: a president can conclude that the public interest is better served by ending a prosecution even without deciding that the allegations were false.
A pardon can be motivated by mercy, national reconciliation or public welfare. Considering one does not necessarily mean the president believes the underlying case is illegitimate.
Biden's Response Was More Serious Than a Casual Joke
Cox's account nevertheless makes clear that Biden did not instantly dismiss the suggestion.
The governor says Biden told him he had been considering the idea for some time.
Biden also said he and first lady Jill Biden had recently discussed it privately.
According to Cox, Biden acknowledged that many people were demanding justice for Trump but said he would seriously consider the pardon idea.
Cox left the limousine believing the possibility was real.
Biden ultimately never issued such a pardon.
The Trump White House Says This Proves 'Weaponization'
The current White House has interpreted the disclosure in the most damaging possible way for Biden.
White House senior communications official Lauren Bis, responding to reporting on Cox's account, argued that the story shows Biden knew Democrats had weaponized the justice system against Trump and failed to stop it.
That statement fits Trump's longstanding argument that his prosecutions were politically engineered to damage his 2024 campaign.
Republicans can reasonably ask why Biden would seriously consider pardoning Trump if he believed every prosecution was both necessary and insulated from political concerns.
The Cox revelation therefore gives Trump allies new material for their political case.
But it still does not supply the missing evidence needed to turn the White House's inference into a factual conclusion.
The claim that Biden 'knew' he had weaponized DOJ is the Trump White House's interpretation of Cox's story. Cox does not quote Biden admitting that he directed prosecutors or believed the federal charges were manufactured.
A President Could Have Pardoned Trump's Federal Exposure Before Trial
The Constitution gives the president broad authority to grant pardons for federal offenses.
That power can be exercised before conviction and, in some circumstances, before formal charges are filed.
Gerald Ford's 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon remains the most famous modern example. Ford granted Nixon a full pardon for federal offenses he had committed or may have committed during his presidency even though Nixon had not been criminally convicted.
Ford publicly defended the action as necessary to prevent prolonged national division and allow the country to move beyond Watergate.
That historical precedent helps explain why Cox's suggestion to Biden was legally possible and why a governor focused on political reconciliation might have proposed it.
Biden Could Not Have Pardoned the New York Case
There is an equally important constitutional limit.
The presidential pardon power extends only to offenses against the United States - federal crimes.
It does not reach state criminal prosecutions.
That means Biden could not have pardoned Trump's Manhattan business-records case even if he had wanted to.
Five days after the Cox conversation, the same limitation would also have applied to the Georgia prosecution brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
A Biden pardon could potentially have eliminated Trump's federal exposure in the two Jack Smith matters. It could not have erased every criminal case Trump faced.
Any article saying Biden had the power to shut down all of Trump's prosecutions is legally wrong. Presidential clemency cannot cancel state criminal charges.
The Two Federal Cases Were Run by Special Counsel Jack Smith
The federal cases deserve separate scrutiny because they were part of the Justice Department led by Biden-appointed Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel in November 2022 after Trump announced another presidential campaign and Biden was expected to seek reelection.
Garland said the appointment was intended to address the extraordinary political circumstances and allow the investigations to proceed with independence and accountability.
Under Justice Department regulations, a special counsel exercises the investigative and prosecutorial authority of a U.S. attorney and is not subject to day-to-day supervision by department officials.
The attorney general retains important authority, including the ability to demand explanations and block a proposed action deemed so inappropriate or unwarranted under established department practices that it should not proceed.
The structure therefore does not make a special counsel completely independent of the executive branch, but it also does not support treating every charging decision as a personal order from the president.
There Is No Biden Direction in the Cox Account
Nothing in Cox's reported conversation says Biden told prosecutors to charge Trump.
Nothing says Biden described a strategy for weakening Trump's campaign through criminal litigation.
Nothing says he claimed private knowledge that the evidence was insufficient.
And nothing says he believed Jack Smith had acted at Biden's direction.
The new information is about Biden's thinking on the use of clemency after prosecutions were underway, not about how the investigations were initiated or controlled.
Those are different factual questions.
A serious weaponization allegation requires evidence about prosecutorial direction, improper pressure, selective charging or other abuse. A private discussion about whether to grant mercy does not by itself prove any of those things.
Biden's Own Public Position Was More Complicated Than the New Headline Suggests
During his presidency, Biden publicly emphasized that the Justice Department should make prosecutorial decisions without White House interference.
He did not pardon Trump and did not publicly call on Jack Smith to abandon the federal cases.
At the same time, Biden was plainly aware that prosecuting a former president and likely general-election opponent created an extraordinary political problem.
Cox's account now shows that this concern was serious enough for Biden to consider the most sweeping constitutional tool available to him: presidential clemency.
That is politically significant even without proving that Biden believed the cases were corrupt.
The Cox Story Actually Cuts in More Than One Direction
Trump supporters can point to the discussion and ask why Biden contemplated a pardon if there was no concern about politicized justice.
Biden defenders can point to Cox's stated rationale and argue that the conversation was about preventing retaliation, not correcting a wrongful prosecution.
Both readings contain an element of interpretation.
The strongest fact is narrower: Biden was sufficiently concerned about the national consequences of Trump's prosecutions that, according to Cox, he had privately discussed a pardon with Jill Biden and was willing to consider the idea seriously.
Hunter Biden Makes the Clemency Contrast Politically Potent
The story is especially damaging to Biden politically because of what he later did with the pardon power.
For months in 2024, Biden publicly said he would not pardon his son Hunter Biden.
He reversed that position on December 1, 2024 and granted Hunter a full and unconditional pardon.
Hunter had been convicted on three federal gun charges and had pleaded guilty to federal tax charges.
The pardon was unusually broad, covering federal offenses Hunter committed or may have committed from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.
That was a pardon, not merely a commutation.
Hunter Biden Later Said the Pardon Was Bad for the Country
The controversy gained new life in August 2026 when Hunter Biden discussed the pardon in a BBC interview.
Hunter acknowledged that he was extraordinarily privileged to receive relief available only because his father was president.
Asked whether the pardon was good for the Constitution, the American people or his father's legacy, he answered no on all counts.
He nevertheless said he was grateful his father had done it.
That admission gives critics a powerful argument that Biden's clemency decisions produced exactly the appearance of unequal justice that he had long claimed to oppose.
Biden Also Issued Extraordinary Preemptive Pardons Before Leaving Office
Biden's final hours in office added another controversial layer.
He issued preemptive pardons to retired Gen. Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci, members and staff of the House January 6 committee and law-enforcement officers who had testified before that committee.
Biden said those individuals had been threatened with unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions and emphasized that granting a pardon should not be read as an admission of wrongdoing.
He also issued pardons to several members of his own family.
Those actions demonstrated that Biden was willing to use presidential clemency proactively when he believed future prosecutions could be abusive.
Biden's later pardons make the Trump discussion politically more striking. They still do not prove that the earlier Jack Smith prosecutions were ordered or manipulated by Biden.
Ford's Nixon Pardon Shows Why Motive Matters
The closest historical analogy is not perfect, but it is instructive.
When President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in September 1974, Ford did not announce that Watergate was a hoax or that prosecutors had acted corruptly.
He argued instead that the prospect of putting a former president on trial would prolong bitter national division and damage the country's ability to move forward.
Cox's proposal to Biden was built around a similar theory of political de-escalation.
That does not mean a Trump pardon would have been wise or justified.
It means the existence of a pardon discussion cannot logically be treated as automatic proof that the prosecutor was corrupt.
The Federal and State Cases Must Not Be Blurred Together
Another weakness in broad 'Biden weaponized all of it' narratives is that the cases came from different sovereigns and prosecutors.
The classified-documents and federal election cases were brought by Jack Smith under the Justice Department.
The Manhattan prosecution was brought by an elected New York district attorney under state law.
The later Georgia election case was brought by an elected county district attorney under Georgia law.
Those prosecutions can each be criticized on their own facts, legal theories and political context.
But treating all four as a single prosecution personally controlled by Biden skips over the basic structure of American federalism.
What the Revelation Does Legitimately Raise
The Cox account does create fair questions.
How seriously did Biden pursue the pardon idea after August 9?
Did he seek legal advice about whether and how a pardon could be structured?
Did he discuss it with Attorney General Garland or other senior officials?
Did Jill Biden or White House advisers support or oppose it?
Was the idea abandoned because Biden believed the prosecutions should continue, because the political cost was too high, or because a federal pardon would have left the state cases untouched?
The public account does not answer those questions.
They would be legitimate subjects for historical reporting or congressional inquiry.
What the Revelation Does Not Establish
The disclosure does not establish that Biden ordered Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.
It does not establish that Biden knew the evidence was false.
It does not establish that the Manhattan or Georgia cases were controlled by the White House.
It does not establish that considering a pardon is equivalent to finding the target innocent.
And it does not establish that Biden had constitutional authority to erase Trump's state prosecutions.
Those are the places where a strong story can become an overclaim.
The Strongest Conservative Case Is About the Double Standard and the Missed Off-Ramp
There is still a sharp political argument available to Biden's critics without claiming more than the evidence proves.
Biden apparently understood in private that prosecuting a leading opposition candidate carried enormous risks for the country.
He considered a historic act of clemency and discussed it with his wife.
He ultimately declined to use that power for Trump.
Later, he reversed a public promise and issued an extraordinarily broad pardon to his own son, then used preemptive pardons to shield allies and family members from future federal prosecution.
Critics can argue that this sequence looks inconsistent and self-protective.
They can also argue that Biden missed the very 'off ramp' Cox says he was trying to create.
Those arguments are politically forceful without requiring the unsupported conclusion that the new revelation is a confession of DOJ weaponization.
What Can Actually Be Said With Confidence
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox says that on August 9, 2023 he urged President Joe Biden to pardon Donald Trump.
According to Cox's account published by The Atlantic, Biden said he had already considered the idea, had recently discussed it with Jill Biden and would seriously consider it.
Biden never pardoned Trump.
At the time of the conversation, Trump faced two federal criminal cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and a New York state prosecution. The Georgia state indictment arrived five days later.
A president has broad constitutional power to pardon federal offenses before or after conviction.
A president cannot pardon state crimes, so Biden had no power to erase the Manhattan prosecution or the later Georgia case.
The Trump White House is now citing Cox's account as proof that Biden knew the justice system had been weaponized.
That is an argument, not a fact established by Cox's account.
Cox says his own purpose was to lower the country's political temperature and interrupt a cycle of retaliation.
The reported conversation contains no admission from Biden that he directed Jack Smith, believed the charges were fabricated or knew prosecutors had acted unlawfully.
Biden later granted Hunter Biden a sweeping federal pardon covering January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024 after previously saying he would not pardon his son.
Hunter Biden has since said the pardon was not good for the Constitution, the American people or his father's legacy, while also saying he was grateful for it.
Biden also issued preemptive pardons to Fauci, Milley, January 6 committee members and staff, certain law-enforcement witnesses and members of his family before leaving office.
Those later clemency decisions make the abandoned Trump pardon politically significant and expose Biden to legitimate charges of inconsistency.
May you like
But the strongest defensible headline is not that Biden has now been caught admitting he weaponized the Justice Department.
It is that Biden privately considered an extraordinary pardon for his principal political rival at the height of Trump's criminal cases - a revelation the Trump White House is using to revive its weaponization case, even though the conversation itself stops well short of proving it.
