Hunter Biden’s legal troubles were supposed to end quietly with a plea deal, one that many viewed as fair and in line with how similar federal cases were handled in the past. The agreement would have seen him plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and enter a diversion program for a gun-related offense.
Unfortunately, fairness quickly took a backseat to politics. Republican lawmakers decried the deal as special treatment, pressuring the Justice Department until it collapsed entirely.
If they had the power to influence the outcome of his plea deal, what is to stop them from controlling what happens to him behind bars? Given the high stakes, former President Joe Biden did what any parent would, he stepped in to protect his son. And who could blame him?
The decision by former President Joe Biden to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, Dec. 1, 2024, sparked intense debate across the political spectrum. The pardon, which covers nearly 11 years of offenses against the United States, raises questions about fairness, justice and the use of presidential power. While some critics argue that Biden’s decision undermines his prior statement that ‘he would not pardon his son,’ I believe he made the right choice.
At its core, this decision is deeply personal. If any parent could protect their child from severe legal consequences, they would likely do so in a heartbeat. The bond between a parent and child transcends politics, and Biden’s decision reflects that reality. His actions may be controversial, but he is also deeply human.
Biden knew that once Trump returned to office, things would take a turn for the worse. With that knowledge, I would not let my son sit in prison either. Incarceration, especially under a vengeful administration, could lead to targeted mistreatment. Trump or his allies could easily find people to target Hunter Biden behind bars. Who knows how far Trump is willing to take his revenge tour? The implications of a politically motivated vendetta are not only troubling but dangerous.
If critics were in Biden’s position, they might see things differently. Just trying to imagine it seems like a nightmare. At the very least, Biden can find some solace in knowing his son is not suffering in prison while the country braces for another tumultuous four years.
Furthermore, in a political climate where President Donald Trump has pardoned individuals who participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, it is difficult to single out Biden’s decision as uniquely problematic. The precedent for questionable pardons has already been set. If Trump could use his executive power to absolve those who actively threatened democracy, why should Biden face severe backlash for pardoning his son?
Pressing issues that require attention such as economic instability, health care crisis and ongoing international conflicts demand more focus than the debate over Hunter Biden’s pardon. Inflation continues to impact American families, the health care system remains in turmoil and global tensions continue to escalate. The time and energy spent scrutinizing this decision could be better utilized in addressing systemic problems that impact millions of Americans.
That being said, the pardon does highlight a growing concern about the misuse of power in Washington. The ethical implications of granting pardons to family members or political allies can erode public trust in the justice system. In a nation that values justice and fairness, there needs to be a greater discussion about when and how this power should be exercised. Are pardons meant for political strategy, personal relief, or to rectify perceived injustices? These are questions that demand thoughtful answers.
Ultimately, while Biden’s decision may be controversial, it is neither surprising nor unprecedented. It is a reflection of both personal loyalty and the broader reality of executive power in American politics. The issue is not whether Biden should have pardoned his son but rather how we as a country address the increasing normalization of power being used for personal and political gain.