-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
Vice President JD Vance recently offered a controversial defense of former President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon over 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot, including those who attacked police officers.
Speaking to CBS’s Margaret Brennan on Sunday, Vance claimed that while violence against police officers is never justified, the pardons were necessary to address what he called an unjust legal process.
“If you stand with law enforcement, how can you call these people unjustly imprisoned?” Brennan asked.
Vance responded by drawing a distinction between the actions of the rioters and what he called political overreach by the Department of Justice. “There’s what the people actually did on January the 6th—we’re not saying everybody did everything perfectly—and then there’s what Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice did in unjustly prosecuting well over 1,000 Americans in a way that was politically motivated,” he argued.
Pressed further on whether violence against police officers could ever be justified, Vance stated, “Violence against a police officer is not justified. But that does not mean that you should have Merrick Garland’s weaponized Department of Justice expose you to incredibly unfair processes, denial of constitutional rights, and a double standard not applied to others.”
He defended Trump’s use of the pardon power, stating, “The pardon power is not just for people who are angels or perfect. Of course, we love law enforcement and want peace, especially with our good cops. But that’s separate from what Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice did. We rectified a wrong, and I stand by it.”
Vance’s comments come amid growing criticism from law enforcement organizations. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) condemned Trump’s pardons, calling them an affront to public safety and the rule of law.
In a joint statement, the organizations said, “Those convicted of killing or assaulting law enforcement officers should serve their full sentences. Crimes against law enforcement are attacks on society and undermine the rule of law. Allowing these individuals to be released early diminishes accountability and devalues the sacrifices of courageous law enforcement officers and their families.”
This criticism is particularly notable given the FOP’s endorsement of Trump in the 2024 presidential election. The union initially refrained from commenting immediately after the pardons were announced but later issued a strong rebuke, marking a significant shift in tone.
Even some recipients of Trump’s pardons have rejected the clemency. Pamela Hemphill, a 71-year-old who served 60 days in jail for her role in the Capitol riot, refused Trump’s offer of forgiveness.
Speaking to NPR, Hemphill described accepting the pardon as a betrayal of law enforcement and the rule of law. “I broke the law that day—period, black and white. I’m not a victim. I’m a volunteer,” she said. “Taking the pardon would be a slap in the face to the Capitol police officers, the rule of law, and our entire nation.”
Hemphill added, “I don’t want to be a part of rewriting history about what really happened that day. If I took a pardon, it would imply that what I did was okay. It was not okay.”
Trump’s decision to issue such sweeping pardons has sparked a national debate about accountability, law enforcement, and the limits of presidential power. Critics argue that these pardons undermine justice and erode public trust in the legal system. Supporters, including Vance, claim the pardons correct what they see as politically motivated prosecutions.
As the controversy continues, the implications of these decisions on Trump’s political future and the broader Republican stance on law enforcement remain uncertain.
