Derek Chauvin Deserves Justice—Not a Pardon

Why the Push for Clemency Is a Dangerous Rollback of Accountability

Mar 14, 2025

A social media firestorm erupted recently after Elon Musk amplified conservative commentator Ben Shapiro’s demand that former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin be pardoned. Chauvin, convicted for the murder of George Floyd, remains in prison, serving both state and federal sentences for his crimes.

Surprisingly, Donald Trump—who has repeatedly used presidential pardons to excuse law enforcement misconduct—claimed he hadn’t even heard about the calls for clemency. “No, I haven’t even heard about it, no. I haven’t heard of that,” he told reporters.

But make no mistake: this is not just another online outrage cycle. The push to rewrite Chauvin’s conviction threatens to unravel years of work toward police accountability and exposes deep fractures in America’s justice system.

Would pardoning Chauvin serve justice? Or is it a brazen attempt to whitewash one of the most egregious cases of police brutality in modern history? Let’s break down why this effort is both dangerous and deeply unjust.

Pardoning Chauvin Would Shatter Police Accountability

Derek Chauvin was not convicted on a technicality or a politically motivated charge. He was found guilty of murder, captured on video kneeling on George Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes as Floyd begged for his life.

This wasn’t a case of ambiguity or mistaken judgment. It was an execution carried out in broad daylight.

Yet, some conservatives insist Chauvin was a victim of “political persecution.” That argument collapses under the weight of reality:

A jury found Chauvin guilty in a fair trial.
The Minneapolis Police Department itself condemned his actions.
He was found guilty of violating police protocol and using excessive force.

A presidential pardon would send an unmistakable message: even in the most clear-cut cases of police brutality, officers can still escape accountability. In a country where police reform remains an uphill battle, this would be a devastating setback.

The Conservative Myth of a ‘Political Prisoner’

Shapiro, Musk, and other right-wing voices claim Chauvin was railroaded by a justice system eager to appease activists. But let’s be clear: if anything, America’s legal system overwhelmingly protects police officers from accountability, not the other way around.

Before Chauvin, only seven police officers had been convicted of murder in on-duty killings over a 15-year span despite thousands of police incidents resulting in death.
Police unions and political allies routinely shield officers from prosecution.
Qualified immunity makes it nearly impossible for victims’ families to hold officers accountable in court.

To call Chauvin a “political prisoner” is to erase decades of police violence that has gone unpunished. His conviction wasn’t an overreach—it was a rarity.

See our article on qualified immunity here:

Qualified Immunity: The Supreme Court’s Shield for Bad Cops

March 12, 2025

Read full story

Trump’s Long History of Pardoning Law Enforcement

Trump’s claim that he hasn’t heard about the calls to pardon Chauvin is hard to believe, especially given his well-documented history of excusing law enforcement officers convicted of civil rights violations, excessive force, and even wrongful deaths.

Throughout his presidency, Trump used his pardon power to protect police and military figures accused of brutality. His past pardons include:

🔹 Joe Arpaio (2017): Convicted of racial profiling and violating court orders, pardoned before he served a single day.
🔹 Stephanie Mohr (2020): A police officer convicted of ordering a police dog attack on a homeless man.
🔹 Gary Brugman (2020): A Border Patrol agent convicted of assaulting a detainee.
🔹 Eddie Gallagher (2019): A Navy SEAL accused of war crimes, including the murder of a prisoner.
🔹 Terence Sutton & Andrew Zabavsky (2025): Two D.C. officers convicted for a deadly police chase and cover-up.

The pattern is clear: Trump has never hesitated to pardon law enforcement officers accused of brutality. So why is he suddenly hesitant about Chauvin?

Why Trump’s Silence on Chauvin Is Telling

Given this history, Trump’s response—“I don’t know about that. I haven’t really looked into it.”—suggests a deliberate political calculation.

Unlike past cases, Chauvin’s crime was captured on video and condemned globally.
The 2020 protests were among the largest in U.S. history, mobilizing even some conservatives against police brutality.
Even Trump’s base is divided on whether Chauvin’s actions were defensible.

Trump’s history makes it clear that he has no moral opposition to pardoning law enforcement officers, even those guilty of egregious misconduct. The only reason he’s hesitating now? He knows this fight is a political loser.

A Pardon Would Have Real-World Consequences

Beyond the moral outrage, what would happen if Chauvin were pardoned?

A Deepening Crisis of Trust in the Justice System
A pardon would confirm the worst fears of millions: that America’s legal system applies differently to the powerful and privileged.

Potential Civil Unrest
The 2020 protests were the largest in American history. A Chauvin pardon could reignite that fury, leading to mass demonstrations nationwide.

The Further Politicization of Pardons
If Chauvin is pardoned, it will embolden future presidents to use clemency as a political tool, further eroding the rule of law.

Final Thoughts: The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher

Derek Chauvin's conviction was supposed to be a turning point—proof that police officers can be held accountable, even in America.

The push to pardon him proves just how fragile that progress is.

If right-wing influencers succeed in rewriting history, they will send a message:

That even undeniable cases of brutality will be excused.
That powerful voices can manipulate justice in real-time.
That the push for racial justice after George Floyd’s death was nothing more than a fleeting moment.

This is a defining moment. Will Trump—or any future Republican president—stand with accountability? Or will they cave to right-wing pressure and erase one of the most pivotal police convictions in modern history?

If you care about justice, speak up.