Political corruption: When pardons undermine justice

Last week, President Trump issued another pardon corrosive to the rule of law — this one for Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat awaiting trial on federal bribery charges. The pardon was especially brazen. Trump publicly acknowledged that he issued it in hopes of inducing Cuellar to switch parties and attacked him for a “lack of LOYALTY” when he declined.

What makes the episode even more disturbing is the reaction of Democratic leaders. Rather than condemn the pardon or remain silent, the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, welcomed it. In a troubling act of political pandering, apparently intended to keep Cuellar aligned with the party, Jeffries went further, publicly questioning the legitimacy of the criminal case by dismissing the indictment as “very thin.”

As former federal prosecutors who spent our careers pursuing public corruption, we see this response for what it is: wagon-circling. The indictment against Cuellar was anything but thin. It was a detailed, 54-page, multicount charging document returned by a federal grand jury and upheld by a federal judge. Cuellar should have been required to answer those charges at trial before a jury of his peers.

Jeffries’s embrace of Cuellar sends a deeply troubling signal — that Democratic leaders, when politically convenient, may be willing to participate in the same degradation of the justice system they rightly condemn in Trump. The appropriate response to a corrupt deal is to repudiate it clearly, consistently and on a bipartisan basis. Anything less further erodes Americans’ already fragile trust in government and the rule of law.

The allegations against Cuellar were grave. In 2024, he was charged with accepting roughly $600,000 in bribes from two foreign interests — Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil company and a Mexican bank — in exchange for promises to influence US policy. At the time, Cuellar was a senior member of Congress with access to sensitive government information. (While at the Justice Department, we worked on the investigation that led to his prosecution.)

If proven, the allegations would mean that Cuellar was willing to sell out American interests for personal gain — a serious national security concern. Elected leaders should have insisted that the case be resolved fully, fairly and promptly in court. Instead, both Trump and Jeffries subordinated the rule of law to partisan advantage.

Consider what this moment represents. The president openly admitted that he pardoned a sitting member of Congress facing federal bribery charges in expectation of political loyalty. Rather than forcefully opposing this conduct, the leading Democrat in the House appeared to engage in a bargain of his own, undermining a lawful prosecution to secure political allegiance.

Jeffries likely calculated that retaining a House seat was worth the ethical cost. That decision is shortsighted and damaging. By validating Trump’s corrupt deal-making, Jeffries helps normalise it. The next time Trump is accused of a pardon quid pro quo, why shouldn’t he cite Democratic approval here? Moreover, dismissing a well-founded corruption case feeds Trump’s broader effort to weaken public corruption laws by portraying legitimate prosecutions as politically motivated.

The damage extends beyond any single case. Democracies depend on public confidence that officials are held accountable. When citizens believe corruption is tolerated and justice is selective, civic engagement declines. Trust in courts erodes, making people less willing to serve as jurors, witnesses or participants in the legal system — weakening public safety and democratic institutions alike.

The only effective response to Trump’s brand of transactional politics is to offer a principled alternative. Democrats should heed the cautionary example of today’s Republican Party in Congress, whose reflexive loyalty to Trump has rendered it incapable of condemning even the most blatant abuses of executive power — at great cost to public trust.

One remaining opportunity to restore confidence lies with the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, which has an open inquiry into Mr. Cuellar’s conduct. Both parties should insist that the committee complete its work swiftly and impartially. If the allegations are sustained, the House should expel Cuellar — with unanimous Democratic support.

Ultimately, voters must enforce anti-corruption principles at the ballot box. That means rewarding candidates who defend the rule of law and rejecting representatives of any party who participate in, excuse or tolerate the kind of corrosive conduct now on display.

The New York Times