Not even Donald Trump’s own White House staff can keep track of what his tariff policies are. After weeks of White House messaging that a 10 percent global tariff would remain the floor for all countries going forward, Trump’s economic adviser Kevin Hassett told CNBC this morning that tariffs could go to 10 percent “or perhaps even below” for countries that bring forward “good offers.” Hassett is the same adviser who caused a market spike (and then a slip) two months ago when he speculated that, ya know, maybe Trump would implement a delay to all his tariffs. Maybe this guy should stop guessing at policy—but then again, that’s what the rest of us are doing. Happy Tuesday. In the midst of his administration’s many attacks on the rule of law, Donald Trump’s pardon yesterday of one Virginia sheriff is barely newsworthy. But it is nonetheless a fire bell in the night, a reminder of the breadth and depth of the Trump administration’s assault on our free society. Scott Jenkins, the former sheriff of Culpeper County, Virginia, was set to report to jail today. He’d been convicted in December 2024 by a jury of his peers on one count of conspiracy, four counts of honest services fraud, and seven counts of bribery. Jenkins had accepted more than $75,000 in bribes in exchange for appointing various untrained and unvetted individuals to no-show jobs as auxiliary deputy sheriffs. The evidence was overwhelming, including video of Jenkins accepting bags of cash, the testimony of some of those involved in the scheme, and reports from two undercover FBI agents. In March 2025, Jenkins was sentenced to ten years in federal prison. “Scott Jenkins violated his oath of office and the faith the citizens of Culpeper County placed in him when he engaged in a cash-for-badges scheme,” acting United States Attorney Zachary T. Lee said at the time of his sentencing. But Jenkins was a rabidly anti-immigrant, pro-Trump sheriff who’d become a minor celebrity in MAGA world. Trump himself may not have known of him, but Ed Martin did. Martin, you’ll recall, was made Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief pardon attorney at the Department of Justice after failing to get Senate confirmation as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin celebrated his achievement just after the pardon: “Thank you, President Trump! I am thrilled that Sheriff Jenkins is the first pardon since I became your Pardon Attorney.” As for Trump, he claimed with no evidence that Jenkins was “persecuted by the Radical Left ‘monsters’” at the Justice Department and convicted unjustly by a “Biden Judge.” He called Jenkins a “wonderful person” who “doesn’t deserve to spend a single day in jail.” Former member of Congress and current gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger, who represented the county where Jenkins was sheriff, was justifiably outraged. She pointed out that “Scott Jenkins was in a position of public trust and he broke the law.” She called the president’s pardon “an affront to the oath [Jenkins] swore, the community he betrayed, the laws he broke, and the law enforcement officers who investigated this case and hold themselves to the highest ethical standard every day.” Spanberger is right. Trump’s pardon is an affront to the oaths both he and Jenkins swore. Though the pardon is legal in the sense that it’s within Trump’s power, it is an affront to the rule of law. As Abraham Lincoln put it in his great 1838 speech on the rule of law, with regard to acts like this, the “direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil; and much of its danger consists, in the proneness of our minds, to regard its direct, as its only consequences.” What are some of the consequences of Trump’s abuse of the pardon power? Well, if you’re a fervently pro-Trump law enforcement officer, and you commit crimes, you can now have a reasonable expectation that you’ll be pardoned. Your crimes could be as simple as personal enrichment. But they can be much larger, too. As the pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists reminds us, they could be crimes carried out on behalf of Trump’s own efforts to avoid the law or impose his will. So under Trump’s pardon regime, law enforcement officers can become Trump enforcement officers. Others who decide to engage in vigilante action—perhaps in cooperation with Trump-supporting law enforcement officers—can also expect pardons. Trump sheriffs and wannabe sheriffs will increasingly believe, thanks to Trump and Ed Martin, that they can act with immunity. MAGA vigilantism over the next four years will be supercharged. The lawyers and judges and juries who do their jobs will be attacked by Trump, as he did yesterday, and by his MAGA minions. In the end, MAGA lawlessness will be emboldened while citizens and officers who seek to uphold the law will be attacked and perhaps intimidated. The president’s pardon power is virtually plenary. In other instances of presidential malfeasance, the courts can ride to the rescue. But not here. Trump’s wielding of the pardon power is a good reminder that there are things he can do that may not be illegal, or that may not be found illegal, that are nonetheless very dangerous to the overall rule of law and to a free society. The pardon power under Trump is a threat. And the only real check is political and civic leaders like Spanberger who call attention to its abuses, and who seek to guard against some of the implications of those abuses. The fundamental check has to be a citizenry that upholds standards of legality and decency even when the president and his administration don’t. The Founders did their best to establish a republic with political checks and balances, with a robust assortment of governmental and nongovernmental institutions, all of which would help preserve freedom. But at the end of the day, we the people have to be the fundamental check and balance. As Federalist No. 55 puts it: “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.” Do we still possess these qualities to a sufficient degree today?
CONTINUE READING