Justice Department officials were left scrambling to interpret and correct portions of former President Joe Biden’s sweeping end-of-term clemency campaign after many cases bypassed the department’s traditional review process, according to internal emails.
The records show officials trying to determine which sentences Biden had actually commuted, correcting an inaccurate notice concerning Hunter Biden’s pardon and confronting complaints that judges, prosecutors and victims had not been consulted.
The emails were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by Protect the Public’s Trust and provided to Fox News Digital.
Presidents have broad constitutional authority to grant pardons and commutations without Justice Department approval. However, the records depict a hurried process in which officials responsible for administering clemency decisions were sometimes not informed until after they were announced.
“Many of the cases that were granted commutation on January 17 were not vetted through our office,” Deputy Pardon Attorney Kira Gillespie wrote. “And so the data we had available was not reviewed as carefully as we would ordinarily hope it to be.”
Nearly 1,500 Sentences Commuted as a Group
On Dec. 12, 2024, Biden commuted the sentences of approximately 1,500 federal prisoners who had been placed in home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic under the CARES Act.
The administration described the recipients as people who had successfully reintegrated into their families and communities.
The Justice Department later acknowledged that its clemency officials had not individually reviewed most recipients. The Bureau of Prisons had assessed the prisoners before approving home confinement, but the Office of the Pardon Attorney did not separately examine most of their offenses and case histories before Biden reduced their sentences.
Former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said the records show a serious difference between the administration’s public explanation and its internal process.
“The process didn’t match the public sales pitch,” Miyares said. “There is a Grand Canyon gap between the public description and the internal reality.”
Biden announced another enormous clemency package on Jan. 17, 2025, covering nearly 2,500 people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.
The following day, then-U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer reportedly informed federal prosecutors that the action “was not carried out in consultation with the Office of the Pardon Attorney and there was little coordination with the Department.”
Only 258 of the approximately 2,490 Jan. 17 recipients had reportedly been recommended by the Justice Department. Some people whom the department rejected were included, while hundreds it recommended were omitted.
The records do not reveal who compiled every final list, what information the White House reviewed or how recipients were selected.
Officials Could Not Determine Which Sentence Was Commuted
The confusion produced significant legal questions after Biden left office.
On Jan. 28, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Maya Song contacted the pardon office concerning a commutation awarded to Christopher Damon Spencer, a repeat offender convicted in crack-cocaine trafficking cases.
Biden’s list identified a 2003 case, but Spencer also had a separate 2011 case carrying a 235-month prison sentence. A court wanted to know whether that sentence had also been commuted.
Gillespie responded that applying the commutation to both cases was the “most sensible reading” and apologized for the confusion.
Her answer meant officials were interpreting the intended scope of a presidential commutation after it had already been issued—potentially determining whether a prisoner remained incarcerated or went free.
A Justice Department official blamed the errors on the White House’s failure to provide complete and timely information. Department employees reportedly had extremely little time to identify recipients, notify prosecutors and implement the decisions.
Hunter Biden Pardon Caught Officials by Surprise
The records also confirm that Biden’s pardon of Hunter Biden bypassed the normal application process and surprised the pardon office.
On Dec. 1, Biden granted his son a full and unconditional pardon covering federal offenses committed or potentially committed over nearly 11 years. The pardon eliminated sentencing following Hunter’s convictions on gun and tax charges.
The pardon office formally informed prosecutors that the matter “was not processed via application through our Office.”
When a Justice Department public-affairs official asked Oyer whether a report that her office had been “taken by surprise” was inaccurate, she replied: “I’m curious about the sourcing on #1, but it’s accurate.”
The office then had to correct its own notification.
An initial notice described Hunter as receiving a pardon “after completion of sentence.” Hunter had not yet been sentenced and, because of the pardon, never would be.
Senior Deputy Pardon Attorney Rosalind Sargent-Burns said the phrase “was included in error” and apologized.
Additional problems arose when the federal court handling Hunter’s California case said the pardon submitted by his lawyers lacked official authentication. Justice Department officials spent several days contacting the court and preparing verification.
By Dec. 6, Oyer wrote: “I think this is now resolved.”
Oyer has since said she was not consulted about several late-term clemency grants and believes Hunter Biden’s pardon was a misuse of presidential authority.
Federal Judge Demanded an Explanation
The Dec. 12 commutations also prompted a blunt complaint from U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland of North Dakota.
After reviewing more than a dozen cases, Hovland said judges, prosecutors and victims had not been consulted.
“None of the federal prosecutors, victims, or myself as the sentencing judge were ever contacted about these commutations beforehand — not even a telephone call,” he wrote.
Hovland highlighted two defendants who defrauded more than 60 farmers and agricultural businesses of $11.4 million and a bank of another $28.5 million. He said they had presented no evidence that justified reducing their sentences.
He also reviewed several drug-trafficking commutations and said none involved what he considered “low-level, non-violent drug offenders.”
Hovland asked how the cases had been investigated, why the sentences were reduced and why officials with direct knowledge had not been contacted.
When a senior pardon-office employee forwarded Hovland’s complaint to Oyer, she responded: “SIGH. Thanks for letting me know.”
The Justice Department said it could find no record that Hovland ever received an answer.
Constitution Permits Presidents to Bypass DOJ
The revelations do not automatically make Biden’s clemency decisions invalid.
The Constitution gives presidents sweeping authority over federal pardons and commutations. They are not required to follow Justice Department recommendations or use the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Presidents from both parties have bypassed the traditional system, and Justice Department clemency regulations are advisory.
The controversy instead concerns whether Biden’s administration adequately reviewed thousands of recipients and accurately implemented decisions that could release prisoners or erase criminal liability.
Former Pardon Attorney Margaret Love called the process a significant departure from established practice.
“Where did the cases come from, and how were they selected?” Love asked. “I don’t know that, and evidently neither did the staff in the pardon office.”
The records show the lack of coordination was not universal. Before Biden commuted most federal death-row sentences on Dec. 23, officials notified the affected U.S. attorneys in advance.
“Pushback by a couple, but all were appreciative of the call,” one Justice Department official reported.
That contrast suggests the administration could coordinate sensitive clemency actions when it chose to do so.
For some of Biden’s largest mass commutations, however, pardon officials were left trying to determine after the fact who received relief, which sentences had been shortened and how the president’s decisions were supposed to be carried out.
