Hunter’s Pardon
I first met Hunter Biden when he was 17 years old, and I was a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, living next door to his brother Beau in the Quad. I remember Hunter as a bright, confident teenager with a magnetic personality and a hot streak. Like the Bidens, my family has also grappled with the devastating toll of addiction. Many years later, my own brother, Sam Spitz, may he rest in peace, succumbed to his struggles during the COVID pandemic.
The presidential pardon is enshrined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, empowering the president with the authority to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” This provision, rooted in the English concept of “prerogative of mercy,” was designed to offer a mechanism to temper justice with mercy, allowing for the correction of judicial errors and the mitigation of undue harshness in the legal system.
Critics of President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter argue that he placed family loyalty above the impartiality of the law, and that it sullies Biden’s campaign promise to restore dignity to the presidency.
Hunter Biden’s troubles are no secret. He wrote a tell-all book describing the years and dollars he spent on cocaine and prostitutes. He committed crimes that were blown out of proportion by public scrutiny and partisan posturing, culminating in convictions for tax evasion and illegal firearm possession. Others in similar circumstances might have avoided prosecution altogether, as Joe Biden pointed out in his statement on the pardon. “Hunter,” he said, “was selectively and unfairly prosecuted.”
Joe Biden found himself in a place where any decision he made regarding his son would have generated a fierce backlash. Biden campaigned for office in 2020 on the vow of restoring dignity to the office of the presidency – contrasting himself directly with the self-serving machinations of Donald Trump and his family. Did pardoning his own son – whose sins included influence-peddling schemes that seemingly implicated several members of the Biden family (including the president) – undermine that pledge? Biden’s critics, many of them Democrats, certainly thought so.
But the president would have also faced disdain if he had allowed his son to face prison. We live, for better or worse, in a transactional society where every act is judged by its gains or costs to the actor. And thus, refusing to grant it would have rendered Biden seem a chump to many Americans – a father unwilling or unable to protect his own family from a justice system he deemed unfair.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 74, argued that the pardon is essential because it allows a leader to temper the rigidity of the law with mercy, especially in “critical moments” when compassion serves the public good. Hunter’s case may not have national significance, but for Biden, the father, it was a critical moment that tested his humanity.
Recent precedent exists for presidents extending clemency to their inner circle. Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother, Roger Clinton, for a 1985 cocaine distribution conviction. In 2020, Donald Trump pardoned his daughter Ivanka’s father-in-law Charles Kushner, a prominent real estate developer, who’d been convicted in 2005 of tax evasion, illegal campaign contributions, and witness tampering.
Kushner hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, recorded the encounter, and sent the tape to his own sister in an attempt to intimidate the witness. This led then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, who prosecuted the case, to describe it as “one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes” he’d ever encountered. In November 2024, President-elect Trump announced his intention to nominate Charles Kushner as the U.S. Ambassador to France.
Hunter Biden’s struggles are not just his own; they belong to a family that has endured unspeakable tragedy and untimely deaths. As someone who has lost relatives to suicide and a brother to addiction, I empathize with the Bidens’ pain. Addiction devastates families, leaving behind a trail of grief, regret, and what-ifs. In this light, Joe Biden’s act of clemency is not just an exercise of power but an entirely understandable attempt to save his son and his family from further suffering.
Critics argue that this decision undermines faith in the justice system and sets a dangerous precedent. But pardons have always toed the line between justice and mercy, law and compassion. Abraham Lincoln, our country’s greatest president, once confided in an old friend, saying, “I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.” And Lincoln was weighing the fate of Union Army deserters.
President Biden’s pardon may not be as high-minded, and it certainly did not resonate with everyone, but it shows that even the most powerful among us are not immune to the heartbreak of addiction and the complexities of familial love.
Hunter’s case also speaks to the broader societal challenges surrounding addiction and recovery. His prosecution highlights an anomalous modern inequity – public figures become stand-ins, and sometimes scapegoats, for larger societal issues. By pardoning his son, Joe Biden implicitly acknowledged the need for a more compassionate approach to addiction, one that prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment.
In the end, this pardon is less about politics and more about the enduring human bonds of family. In a transactional world, where power often outweighs principles, President Biden’s decision reflects a rare moment of vulnerability and authenticity. To lose a child to addiction is every parent’s nightmare; to save one, even at great personal and political cost, is an act of profound love.
As we debate the merits of this decision and future pardons to come, let us remember that the pardon power, at its best, is a tool for healing, reconciliation, and compassion. President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter reminds us that even in the highest offices of power, humanity and family still matter most.