On December 1, President Joseph Biden announced a pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, on charges of gun and tax violations, reversing his pledge not to pardon him if convicted. In his statement, the president wrote:

Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter … The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election … No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son … I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.

With the pardon, many on both sides of the political aisle have become rankled. Republicans call the pardon corrupt and warned of “irreparable damage,” while Donald Trump, the president-elect and effective leader of the Republican Party, argued in court that his own criminal convictions should be discounted. Meanwhile, some Democrats have been critical of the pardon, arguing Biden prioritized “himself over the party and even the country,” thus providing fodder for the Republican Party, or even suggesting he pardon Trump. The judge presiding over the younger Biden’s case called the pardon a rewriting of history. The New York Times, long the paper of record, ran an editorial blaming Biden’s pardon for justifying “further abuses of pardon power and broader attacks on the integrity of the justice system” under Trump (apparently forgetting that Trump cares little for precedent).

However, when it comes to the charges brought forth, this is no ordinary criminal case. Hunter Biden has had a long background of run-ins with the law and controversies stemming from drug abuse and depression, along with a history of being in the public eye in connection with allegations of corruption related to the Biden family’s purported dealings with Ukraine.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ), through US Attorney for the District of Delaware (and Trump appointee) David Weiss, began investigating Hunter in late 2018 for lying “about not using drugs on a [federal] form required for a firearm purchase.” The investigation continued well into President Biden’s term and expanded to encompass Hunter’s failure to pay taxes. In 2023, Hunter entered into a plea deal “to a pair of tax-related misdemeanors and enter into a pretrial diversion agreement that would enable him to avoid prosecution on one felony gun charge.” Following this, numerous Republican legislators, government whistleblowers, and conservative commentators alleged Hunter was evading serious charges, despite some legal experts’ claim to the contrary. Following the judge’s request that Hunter’s attorneys and the DOJ rework discrepancies in the plea and diversion agreements, and their subsequent failure to come to an agreement, Weiss indicted Hunter in both of the federal cases. Eventually, in June of 2024, Hunter was convicted “of all three felony charges” related to his firearm purchase.

The fact that Hunter was indicted after the DOJ had already come to a plea agreement raised fair questions that “Weiss’s thinking changed as the whistleblowers went public and criticism from Republicans intensified.” In effect, there are three main and competing reasons for the DOJ’s actions as it relates to the Hunter Biden investigation and prosecution:

Number one is essentially incompetence: Prosecutors didn’t understand the implications of what they were promising. Number two is malfeasance: Prosecutors knew all along they were offering something more limited, but misled Hunter’s attorneys about what they meant. Number three is flip-flopping: Prosecutors initially made the broad promise, but reneged after political backlash from Republicans.

It is not unreasonable to claim that Hunter Biden’s prosecution was because of his surname, his father’s position in government, the unfounded allegations made by Republicans about Biden-Ukraine, or the outcry from Republicans for judicial disparity. In fact, there is ample evidence to place blame on the DOJ for being too politically conscious and pursuing tougher sentencing due to Hunter’s prominence.

Furthermore, Joe Biden’s pardoning of Hunter is not unlike other pardons by presidents from both parties and is far more justified than past pardons. It nowhere reaches the corrupt pardons issued by Trump to insulate himself from the Russia investigation. It does not rise to the level of George H.W. Bush’s pardons to those involved in Iran-Contra, which independent counsel Lawrence Walsh called “a grave disservice to the citizens of this country,” and arguably was meant to avoid incrimination. Nor was it blatantly anti-democratic like Andrew Johnson’s pardoning of Confederates in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Joe Biden’s pardoning of his son is to address a wrong, correcting the political prosecution and persecution of his son who was only targeted for his father’s position in government and due to outcries from the vocal right wing. Hunter Biden has suffered more than enough for his crimes, being harassed for years by Republican legislators in official committees, and by Trump supporters in the court of public opinion. It is even more likely he would face harassment by the incoming Trump administration.

However, Hunter Biden is not the only person under threat of a second Trump administration; Kash Patel, the de facto nominee for FBI Director and a Trump loyalist, has developed a list of individuals that Trump should target and prosecute for alleged (and fictitious) crimes. These individuals include prominent Democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris along with select Republicans, but also individuals from Trump’s previous administration including Bill Barr, Mark Esper, Jeff Sessions, and government employees like Robert Mueller, Jack Smith, and James Comey. These individuals are included on these lists because of a personal animus or because they took the oaths they made to the US Constitution seriously and spoke truth to power. If any individuals deserve pardons, then it is the individuals who are most at risk of a vindictive administration.

Beyond these individuals, there are others who deserve pardons for their crimes. There are 40 individuals on federal death row, many of whom would face execution under Trump. There are a presumably substantial number of commissioned officers from the US Armed Forces who are slated to be court-martialed for withdrawing from Afghanistan, under a deal devised by Trump. There are also numerous individuals whose criminal cases were fraught with bias, witness tampering, or other questionable legal tactics by judges and prosecutors; Leonard Peltier, Marcus Garvey, Terence Richardson, and Ferrone Claiborne, and thousands of others remain in the federal criminal justice system who deserve pardons, clemency, and commutations.

Furthermore, while in no way a surefire method of protection, Biden should grant clemency to the over one million eligible Dreamers, to at least provide a show of solidarity to the undocumented. In the days after Hunter’s pardon, Biden  pardoned 40 more individuals and granted clemency to nearly 1,500 others convicted of non-violent offenses, yet none of these were any individuals mentioned above.

Naturally, issuing these pardons does not necessarily mean these individuals will be free from persecution. The Trump administration, it can be assured, regardless of institutional norms, will go after its enemies and be vindictive. Yet, a pardon will certainly save some of these individuals’ lives, right wrongs that should have been done long ago, and provide another layer of protection to those whose safety and security, freedom, and liberty are at risk by the incoming administration. However, even if in some cases it proves infeasible or simply is a symbolic effort at reconciliation or solidarity, it nonetheless must be done and would be one last good deed from his presidency. If Joe Biden desires to have his legacy of impressive accomplishments maintained and remembered, then he should be conscious of the reality of Donald Trump and the threat he poses to more people than his own family.