Trump’s J6 Pardons Increased Risks to Public Safety

While presidential clemency is constitutionally legitimate, the U.S. Justice Department’s pardon process is ordinarily designed to protect the public by identifying and excluding high-risk individuals through individualized review. That process evaluates criminal history, likelihood of rehabilitation, and patterns of violence. It also often includes victim input.

In Trump’s January 6 pardons, none of those safeguards applied. None.

As scholars who maintain a database tracking post-pardon criminal conduct for this group, we find that roughly a year later, these mass pardons — issued without screening or review — have produced concrete, measurable risks to public safety by removing legal constraints from individuals with documented histories of violence, extremism, or recidivism.

Some had unrelated criminal cases pending when receiving pardons. Others have faced new, unrelated criminal charges since January. 6. In some instances, Trump has issued pardons for these subsequent offenses as well.

To date, at least 17 individuals who received pardons have been rearrested, newly charged, or convicted of unrelated criminal conduct, including violent offenses and threats to public officials — a figure that almost certainly understates the true scope due to incomplete public reporting.

For example, Zachary Alam of Centreville, Virginia, described by prosecutors as one of the most violent offenders on January 6, was convicted of eight felonies for his actions that day, including assaulting police officers. Less than five months after being pardoned, Alam was arrested for a home invasion, adding to a criminal history that includes DUI and auto theft.

Matthew Huttle, a Hobart, Indiana man who had a lengthy criminal record including battery and DUI offenses even before January 6, was fatally shot by law enforcement less than a week after receiving a Trump pardon. Huttle, a convicted felon, was illegally in possession of a firearm at the time of the encounter.

When David Daniel of Mint Hill, North Carolina was arrested for his January 6 crimes, police uncovered evidence leading to charges of possessing child sexual abuse material and sexual exploitation of a minor. Despite these pending charges, Daniel was pardoned — and now argues the pardon extends to these offenses because the evidence was discovered because of his January 6 arrest.

In October 2025, Christopher Moynihan, a pardoned January 6 defendant from Clinton, New York, was arrested for making death threats against House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. He is currently out on bail.

These cases represent only a small sample of post-pardon criminal activity among January 6 defendants. President Trump has repeatedly described these individuals as “patriots” and “great people,” yet their actions — before, during, and after January 6, 2021 — raise serious questions about those characterizations.

These cases demonstrate how the mass, unscreened use of presidential clemency can generate tangible risks to public safety. By bypassing the Justice Department’s individualized review process, the January 6 pardons removed accountability from individuals who, in multiple documented instances, quickly reengaged in violent, threatening, or otherwise dangerous behavior.

When clemency is applied indiscriminately to offenders with demonstrated patterns of violence or extremism, it undermines the very accountability mechanisms intended to protect the public — shifting the real-world costs of that decision from the justice system onto law enforcement officers, public officials, and ordinary citizens.