Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: President Trump's Jan. 6 pardons broke his promise to the nation

Published

on

Opinion: President Trump's Jan. 6 pardons broke his promise to the nation

Promises made, promises kept, President Trump liked to crow during his first term, sometimes deservedly.

He’s only days into his second term and already he’s making that claim after a torrent of executive orders. In no case is his boast more justified, if shameful, than for his Day 1 blanket order pardoning 1,583 rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, commuting the sentences of those most responsible — and violent — and dismissing all remaining cases.

Trump vowed at rallies throughout his 2024 campaign that once back in office he’d immediately free “the J-6 hostages.” Yet in keeping that promise, he broke a long-forgotten one on the same subject. He made it not at a political rally but in a videotaped recording at the White House, a day after the seven-hour insurrection was put down and as he faced bipartisan condemnation for his complicity.

Opinion Columnist

Jackie Calmes

Advertisement

Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.

The president who’d inspired the mob to try to keep him in power began that evening by calling Jan. 6 not a “day of love” among patriots, as he says these days, but a “heinous attack on the United States Capitol.” And then, still sounding like a normal president, Trump said this:

“Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem. I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders. America is and must always be a nation of law and order. The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay.”

Advertisement

At the time, the only lies in that passage seemed to be Trump’s contention that he “immediately deployed” forces to quell the tumult that directly or indirectly caused the deaths of nine people, including five police officers. Now we know the whole thing was a lie: Trump wasn’t outraged. He didn’t really condemn the “demonstrators” — they were pro-Trump, after all, as shown by the banners on poles that were weaponized against police. He didn’t care that they were lawless or violent despite the carnage he witnessed watching hours of televised coverage alone in the White House, ignoring aides’ and family members’ pleas to intervene.

Most of all, Trump didn’t really believe his rioters should “pay.”

And now, just as Trump has paid no price for his role as the instigator of Jan. 6, he’s wiped the books clean for all the attackers, negating verdicts by scores of juries of their peers.

A couple of examples of his freed “hostages”: David Dempsey of Santa Ana, Calif., a man with a criminal history who pleaded guilty and got 20 years in prison, reflecting his cruelty against police. Read the prosecution report: Dempsey clambered over other rioters, using “his hands, feet, flag poles, crutches, pepper spray, broken pieces of furniture, and anything else he could get his hands on” to batter officers trying to protect the Capitol and those within, including Trump’s vice president.

And Daniel “DJ” Rodriguez of Fontana, Calif., who ran an online site for the so-called PATRIOTS45MAGA Gang that mobilized militants to come to the Capitol; once there, he pummeled police with a fire extinguisher, poles and a stun gun, which he repeatedly thrust into the neck of D.C. police Officer Michael Fanone, who suffered a heart attack among other injuries. “Tazzzzed the f— out of the blue,” Rodriguez posted afterward. Inside the Capitol, he vandalized offices, broke windows and stole items. He was sentenced to 12 years.

Advertisement

By Tuesday, two of the feds’ biggest gets — far-right militia leaders Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys (22 years) and Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers (18 years) — likewise walked out of prisons. “The notion that Stewart Rhodes could be absolved of his actions is frightening and ought to be frightening to anyone who cares about democracy in this country,” U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over his trial, said last month, anticipating Trump’s action.

So many such stories. And yet Trump’s order tells a grotesquely false one: “This proclamation ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation.”

Now-retired officer Fanone, who courageously testified to the House Jan. 6 committee and received death threats because of it, isn’t feeling reconciled. With all six of his identified attackers now free (and free to own guns), he posted on Instagram: “My family, my children and myself are less safe today because of Donald Trump and his supporters.”

The prevaricator in chief has also essentially made liars of those around him. Vice President JD Vance told Fox News Sunday a week before, “If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.” Obviously? And Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, testified days later at her Senate confirmation hearing that pardons would be decided “on a case-by-case basis. And I abhor violence to police officers.” If confirmed, she’ll now enforce Trump’s all-encompassing dictate, ensuring that jails and court dockets are cleared of those who beat hundreds of police officers.

What’s galling is that Republicans, rather than simply condemning Trump, are drawing a false equivalence between his action and former President’s Biden’s last-minute preemptive pardon of his siblings and their spouses. Biden deserves blame — lots — for giving Republicans that opening, despite Trump’s explicit threat of legal retribution against his family. Yet there’s no comparison between Biden’s simply objectionable pardons and Trump’s execrable blanket clemency for the traitorous.

Advertisement

Trump kept a campaign promise, a repugnant one, but in the process broke the earlier, fitting one — to make them pay. And with the Jan. 6 pardons, he made a mockery of the rule of law. On his first day as president.

@jackiekcalmes

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending