The January 6 Pardons: Defining a New Political Violence Normal

Blanket clemency for ~1,583 people, including 600+ who assaulted law enforcement and 14 seditious conspiracy leaders. This article examines how the pardons didn't just free individuals—they sent a message about acceptable political violence and created a template for future insurrections.

Analytical Frame: Deterrence, Norms, and “Permission Structures”

Democratic stability depends on more than law—it depends on norms that keep politics from becoming winner-take-all conflict. Levitsky & Ziblatt emphasize that mutual toleration and institutional forbearance are the guardrails: once political actors treat opponents as enemies and normal constraints as optional, the rules can remain on paper while the system becomes dangerously unstable.

Bermeo’s backsliding typology helps interpret this kind of event not as an isolated controversy but as part of a broader trajectory: when accountability mechanisms are neutralized and political violence is reframed as justified, democratic erosion accelerates. Milan Svolik’s work adds a key psychological dimension: when polarization is intense, many citizens will tolerate anti-democratic behavior by their side because the alternative (the out-party winning) feels existential.

In Nordlinger’s terms, such actions also reshape the “permissibility” environment: pardons function as signals about what the leader considers legitimate—and what future participants should consider safe. The result is a permission structure for violence: if punishment is removed, the costs of participation collapse.

The Scope

On January 20, 2025—his first day back in office—the president issued blanket clemency to approximately 1,583 individuals charged or convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack.

This was the largest prosecution in Department of Justice history, undone with a single proclamation.

Over 1,500 received full pardons. Fourteen leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys convicted of seditious conspiracy—the most serious charges brought—received commutations to time served.

The scope included:

600+ individuals who assaulted law enforcement officers
170 individuals who used deadly weapons
14 seditious conspiracy leaders from the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys

NPR found that many of the pardoned rioters had prior convictions for rape, child sexual exploitation, domestic violence, and manslaughter.

The Violent Offenders

The blanket nature of the clemency meant no distinction between those who wandered into the Capitol and those who beat police officers unconscious.

David Dempsey was sentenced to 20 years—one of the longest sentences imposed. Dempsey assaulted officers with pepper spray, a metal crutch, and flagpoles for over an hour. Video showed him at the front lines of violence for the duration of the attack. He was pardoned.

Daniel Rodriguez tasered Officer Michael Fanone in the neck while a mob beat him. Fanone later suffered a heart attack and traumatic brain injury. Rodriguez texted afterward: "Tazzzzed the fuck out of the blue." He was released.

Julian Khater pepper-sprayed Officer Brian Sicknick directly in the face. Sicknick died the next day from strokes. Medical examiners found "all that transpired played a role in his condition." Khater received clemency.

Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys chairman, had been sentenced to 22 years—the longest January 6 sentence. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy for orchestrating the attack while not even present at the Capitol. He received a full pardon.

These weren't people who got caught up in a protest. These were people convicted after trial of deliberately, violently attacking police officers and attempting to overturn an election. All walked free.

The Judicial Response

Federal judges who had presided over January 6 cases responded with alarm. They had spent years hearing evidence, watching video, and determining sentences. Then they watched those sentences nullified.

Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee who had sentenced numerous January 6 defendants, stated he could never recall "such meritless justifications of criminal activity."

Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over the Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy trial, warned: "The notion that Stewart Rhodes could be absolved is frightening—and ought to be frightening to anyone who cares about democracy in this country."

Judge Beryl Howell called the proclamation's justification a "revisionist myth," writing: "No 'national injustice' occurred here, just as no outcome-determinative election fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election."

These judges had seen the evidence. They had watched the videos of officers being beaten with flagpoles, crushed in doorways, pepper-sprayed and tasered. They had heard defendants show no remorse. They had carefully calibrated sentences to reflect both the individual conduct and the severity of attacking the seat of democratic government.

None of it mattered. A single signature erased years of judicial work and rendered the sentences meaningless.

The Law Enforcement Response

The pardons created an extraordinary moment: a president pardoning people who had assaulted police officers while claiming to support law enforcement.

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a Republican, objected: "We let bad people go... Anyone who was convicted of assault on a police officer, I just can't get there at all."

The Fraternal Order of Police and International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a joint statement expressing "deep discouragement," stating: "Allowing those convicted of these crimes to be released early diminishes accountability and devalues the sacrifices made by courageous law enforcement officers."

Over 140 officers were injured on January 6. Four died by suicide in the aftermath. One officer lost an eye. Another had a heart attack while being tased. Another was beaten with his own baton.

Their attackers are now free.

The Recidivism

Within months of the pardons, multiple pardoned individuals faced new arrests:

One was arrested for child molestation
One was arrested for breaking and entering
One was arrested for threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries
One was arrested for kidnapping

This pattern vindicated critics who warned that blanket clemency without case-by-case review would release dangerous individuals. The administration's position—that all January 6 defendants were political prisoners—ignored evidence that many had histories of violence unrelated to politics.

What the Pardons Signaled

The January 6 pardons sent several messages simultaneously:

To future insurrectionists: Political violence on behalf of the president will be rewarded. If you attack the Capitol and get caught, eventual clemency awaits. The personal risk of political violence has been reduced to near zero.

To law enforcement: Your safety is conditional. Officers who defend the Capitol against presidential supporters do so knowing the president will pardon their attackers. The "blue lives matter" rhetoric applies only when convenient.

To the courts: Your judgments are provisional. Years of trials, evidence, and sentencing can be erased with a signature. The judicial branch's role in holding political violence accountable depends entirely on executive acquiescence.

To democracy itself: The peaceful transfer of power is optional. Those who attempted to prevent the last one faced no lasting consequences. The precedent has been set.

The Clemency Power

The Constitution grants the president broad authority to issue pardons. This power has historically been used for mercy—to correct unjust sentences, to promote reconciliation after conflicts, to give second chances to those who have demonstrated rehabilitation.

The January 6 pardons inverted this tradition. They weren't granted because the sentences were unjust—multiple federal judges had carefully weighed the evidence and determined appropriate punishment. They weren't granted because the defendants had been rehabilitated—many showed no remorse and continued to insist the election was stolen. They weren't granted to promote reconciliation—they inflamed divisions by validating the attack.

They were granted because the defendants had committed violence in service of the president.

This transforms the pardon power from a check on injustice into a reward for loyalty. Future supporters know that crimes committed for the administration will be forgiven. The pardon power becomes another tool for ensuring compliance—a promise of protection for those who do the administration's violent work.

The Historical Comparison

Previous presidents have issued controversial pardons. Ford's pardon of Nixon was deeply divisive. Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich raised questions about influence. George H.W. Bush's pardons of Iran-Contra figures were criticized as covering up executive misconduct.

But no previous pardon approached the January 6 clemency in scale or nature.

These weren't individuals who committed crimes in the course of policy disputes. They weren't officials who exceeded their authority in pursuing government objectives. They were people who physically attacked the seat of government to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

The attack on January 6 was the most serious assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812. It resulted in deaths, injuries, and a fundamental challenge to democratic governance. The perpetrators have now been absolved.

The Template

The pardons created a template for future political violence.

Before January 6, attacking the Capitol to overturn an election was unthinkable—a line no American political movement would cross. January 6 proved it was possible. The pardons proved it was acceptable.

The sequence matters:

Organize supporters for political violence
If violence succeeds, the objective is achieved
If violence fails, participants are arrested
If the president returns to power, participants are pardoned
No lasting consequences attach to political violence on behalf of the president

This creates a one-way ratchet. Political violence in service of the president has been normalized and immunized. The constitutional order depends on the threat of punishment deterring attacks on democratic institutions. That deterrent has been removed.

The Seditious Conspiracy Question

Seditious conspiracy—conspiring to overthrow the government by force—is among the most serious charges in federal law. It carries up to 20 years imprisonment and has historically been reserved for genuine threats to the constitutional order.

The Oath Keepers and Proud Boys leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy after lengthy trials with extensive evidence. Prosecutors demonstrated that they planned the attack in advance, brought weapons, and intended to prevent the constitutional transfer of power.

Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, received an 18-year sentence. Prosecutors showed he positioned armed "quick reaction forces" outside Washington, ready to bring weapons into the city. He was recorded after the election saying: "We're going to have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution against them."

Enrique Tarrio received 22 years. Despite not being present at the Capitol, he was shown to have orchestrated the Proud Boys' role in the attack.

These weren't protesters who got out of hand. These were leaders who conspired to violently prevent the constitutional transfer of power. Seditious conspiracy convictions are extraordinarily rare—the government must prove both the conspiracy and the intent to use force against the United States.

The commutations declared that seditious conspiracy against the United States, if committed on behalf of the president, carries no lasting consequence.

What Remains

The January 6 prosecutions represented an attempt by the justice system to hold political violence accountable. Prosecutors, judges, and juries spent years establishing facts, determining guilt, and imposing sentences.

All of it has been erased.

The officers who were beaten remain injured. The psychological trauma remains. The damage to the Capitol has been repaired, but the precedent remains: attack the Capitol for the president, and you'll be pardoned.

The judges' warnings—that this was dangerous, that it signaled impunity for political violence, that it "ought to be frightening to anyone who cares about democracy"—went unheeded. The pardons proceeded. The perpetrators walked free.

What happens next time depends partly on whether potential participants believe they'll face consequences. The January 6 pardons answered that question definitively: they won't.

This is the fifteenth article in a series examining democratic decline. The next article explores negative partisanship—research showing Americans increasingly define themselves by who they despise rather than what they believe, and how this psychological shift creates permission structures for previously unthinkable actions.