These cases highlight a structural vulnerability in a system that grants presidents near-total discretion with few avenues for review.
By Matthew A. McIntosh
Public Historian
Brewminate
Introduction
At least ten people pardoned by President Donald Trump for their roles in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol have since been rearrested, charged, or sentenced for new and often severe crimes, according to a detailed review by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Their findings, supported by reporting from outlets including AP News, NPR, WUSA9, USA Today, HuffPost, the Chicago Sun-Times, and multiple local news agencies, reveal a pattern that has raised sharp public safety concerns surrounding Trump’s sweeping use of clemency.
The new cases span a broad range of misconduct. Some involve individuals arrested on new violent charges, including Taylor Taranto, who was later detained near Barack Obama’s home. Others involve defendants like Shane Jason Woods, who went on to be tried for a fatal DUI crash. Several cases center on sexual violence and child exploitation, including individuals charged with child sexual abuse material, which separately reviewed the criminal histories of multiple pardon recipients.
These incidents expose a troubling aftermath of Trump’s mass pardons: individuals who were shielded from accountability for an attack on democratic institutions later becoming entangled in crimes ranging from major theft to child sexual abuse to homicide, to plots targeting federal agents, documented by the Department of Justice in its press release on the conspiracy to murder FBI employees.
The scale and severity of these new cases have renewed scrutiny of Trump’s decision to grant broad clemency to January 6 participants and have intensified debate over how presidential pardons should function when the beneficiaries were involved in an assault on the peaceful transfer of power.
Trump’s Sweeping Pardons for January 6 Defendants
When President Donald Trump issued mass pardons and commutations for individuals charged in the January 6 attack, he framed the move as a correction of what he called politically motivated prosecutions. Outlets including Politico and Al Jazeera documented Trump’s decision to extend clemency even to people convicted of assaulting police and engaging in violent breaches of the Capitol, a use of presidential power that immediately drew warnings from legal observers and ethics groups.
Trump publicly cast many of the rioters as “patriots.” His administration argued that prosecutors had treated them unfairly and that his intervention restored balance. But watchdog organizations and former federal officials criticized the clemency as an abuse of authority that weakened accountability for an attack aimed at overturning the democratic process. Their concerns deepened once reports emerged that some of the same individuals were later accused of new violent, predatory, or high-risk crimes.
Even some Republican figures expressed earlier hesitation about pardoning those involved in the assault. Before taking office, Vice President JD Vance stated that individuals who engaged in violence should face consequences, a position reported by Politico and cited in later coverage exploring how Trump’s approach diverged sharply from traditional uses of clemency.
Ethics advocates, including CREW, warned that granting pardons to people who took part in an attack on Congress risked signaling tolerance for political violence. Their review later showed that at least ten individuals who benefited from Trump’s decision went on to face fresh charges, intensifying debate over the long-term public safety impact of those pardons.
CREW’s Findings: At Least Ten Pardoned Rioters With New Serious Charges
The most comprehensive accounting of post-pardon criminal conduct comes from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which published a detailed investigation identifying at least ten individuals who were pardoned by President Trump for their roles in the January 6 attack and later arrested, charged, or sentenced for new offenses. The report, which synthesizes federal filings, local reporting, and national news coverage, outlines a pattern of misconduct that ranges from violent conspiracies to sexual crimes against children.
CREW’s review cites cases like Zachary Alam, whose new charges for home invasion and theft were reported by WUSA9. Another individual, Taylor Taranto, was arrested near Barack Obama’s home after broadcasting threats online, according to AP News and follow-up reporting from WUSA9.
Several of the new cases involve crimes that federal prosecutors described as serious public-safety risks. One of the most alarming, documented by the Department of Justice, involves Edward Kelley, who was later convicted in a plot to murder FBI employees in Tennessee, a case centered on a circulated “kill list” and plans to attack a federal field office. DOJ records show that Kelley had previously received Trump’s clemency for his January 6 conduct.
CREW also highlighted individuals who reoffended in ways that were not political but deeply harmful. In Humboldt County, California, Brent John Holdridge, pardoned for his involvement in the Capitol breach, was arrested in a major copper-wire theft case, as reported by KRCR. Meanwhile, Emily Hernandez, known for carrying the broken “Speaker Pelosi” nameplate during the riot, was later sentenced for a fatal drunk-driving crash that killed a woman, according to USA Today.
Some of the most disturbing cases involve sexual crimes. David Daniel, who pleaded guilty to resisting police on January 6, was later detained on charges involving child sexual abuse materials, as documented by HuffPost. NPR separately reported that several of Trump’s pardon recipients had earlier histories involving rape, sexual abuse of a minor, domestic violence, and production of child sexual abuse material, illustrating how some individuals who received clemency already posed significant risks.
Together, these cases illustrate not just isolated incidents but a broader pattern: Trump’s pardons lifted accountability for participants in an attack on Congress, and in doing so, released individuals who, in documented instances, went on to commit or be charged with violent, predatory, or high-impact crimes. The findings have intensified national debate over the public-safety consequences of Trump’s sweeping clemency.
Violence, Extremism, and Threats to Law Enforcement
Edward Kelley – Conspiracy to Murder FBI Employees
One of the most severe post-pardon cases involves Edward Kelley, a January 6 defendant who later became the focus of a federal terrorism investigation. According to the Department of Justice, Kelley helped create a “kill list” of FBI employees and conspired to attack the bureau’s Knoxville field office. A federal jury convicted him of conspiracy to murder federal law-enforcement officers, a plot that had nothing to do with his original Capitol-related charges but demonstrated an escalation into targeted violence. Kelley had been among those pardoned by Trump for his prior conduct, yet he now faces a potential life sentence, as confirmed in the DOJ’s press release:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/federal-jury-convicts-man-conspiring-murder-fbi-employees.
Separate coverage from WBIR notes that Kelley still faces the possibility of life in prison following the conviction, underscoring the seriousness of the plot:
https://www.wbir.com/article/news/crime/edward-kelley-still-faces-life-sentence/51-f382db68-8292-4e20-8bba-5840e6d110c3.
Taylor Taranto – Threats Near Barack Obama’s Home and Federal Facilities
Another high-risk incident involved Taylor Taranto, who had previously been charged for his role in the Capitol breach. In 2023, Taranto was arrested near former President Barack Obama’s residence after livestreaming threats and possessing materials that raised security alarms, according to reporting by AP News:
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-obama-threat-taylor-taranto-trump-6d027e3aa037f1ceceb1c6b6fc3e536e.
Additional reporting from WUSA9 details how Taranto’s prior January 6 case was still pending when he was taken into custody again, this time on charges involving threats and illegal possession of a weapon near federal property:
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/crime/trial-begins-for-taylor-taranto-former-jan-6-defendant-arrested-near-obama-home-nist-kalorama/65-c2647db2-a61f-4f79-8953-62551b2626c1.
Zachary Alam – Violent Breach Participant Now Charged With Home Invasion
Zachary Alam, previously sentenced to prison for violently breaking into the Capitol and smashing the glass next to the House Speaker’s Lobby during the riot, later faced unrelated charges for home invasion and theft. According to local reporting by WUSA9, Alam was arrested again after allegedly forcing his way into a Maryland residence and stealing property:
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/national/capitol-riots/january-6-capitol-riot-zachary-alam-donald-trump-pardon/65-18b573a8-b4c3-4072-9493-67cb405fc2a1.
The new charges came after Alam received Trump’s clemency, a decision that erased his January 6 sentence but did not prevent subsequent serious criminal conduct.
Daniel Ball – Assault on Officers Followed by New Felony Gun Charge
Daniel Ball was originally charged for throwing an explosive device at police during the Capitol attack. As CBS News reported, federal prosecutors later moved to dismiss an unrelated felony charge after Ball received a Trump pardon for his January 6 conduct. But despite that act of clemency, he was subsequently arrested again on an illegal firearm possession charge, adding another layer of legal scrutiny:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/acting-u-s-attorney-florida-dismiss-unrelated-felony-charge-jan-6-defendant-daniel-ball/.
This case exemplifies how Trump’s pardons removed the consequences for Ball’s Capitol-related assault on law enforcement, while further charges accumulated afterward.
Sexual Violence, Child Exploitation, and Abuse
Andrew Taake – Charged With Soliciting a Minor
Andrew Taake, originally charged for assaulting police during the January 6 attack, was later arrested on allegations of soliciting a minor, according to the CREW investigation, which reviewed federal and local records documenting his post-pardon conduct:
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/at-least-10-pardoned-insurrectionists-face-other-criminal-charges/.
Taake’s case stands out because the new offense occurred after he benefited from Trump’s clemency, underscoring how the pardon removed the consequences of the earlier violent conduct without preventing subsequent predatory behavior.
Theodore Middendorf – Sexual Assault of a Seven-Year-Old
Theodore Middendorf, pardoned by Trump for his January 6-related charge of destruction of government property, was already serving a 19-year sentence for the sexual assault of a seven-year-old child. This history was documented in the CREW report, which cites NPR’s broader review of the criminal records of many pardon recipients:
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5276336/donald-trump-jan-6-rape-assault-pardons-rioters.
Middendorf’s case illustrates how some January 6 clemency recipients had serious, violent criminal histories fully known at the time clemency was granted.
David Daniel – Detained on Charges Involving Child Sexual Abuse Materials
David Daniel, who pleaded guilty to resisting police during the Capitol breach, was later detained on federal charges involving child sexual abuse materials. As HuffPost reported, Daniel’s arrest followed an investigation into alleged possession of illicit material involving minors:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-pardon-child-sexual-abuse-materials_n_679913dae4b0e3bbf46ce8c0.
CREW’s review confirms that Daniel’s January 6 case was wiped clean by Trump’s pardon, but the new charges—serious offenses with substantial penalties—materialized afterward.
NPR’s Review: Additional Pardoned Individuals With Histories of Sexual Violence
A separate investigation by NPR found that individuals granted clemency for January 6 crimes included people previously charged with or convicted of rape, sexual abuse of a minor, production of child sexual abuse material, domestic violence, and other serious offenses:
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5276336/donald-trump-jan-6-rape-assault-pardons-rioters.
The NPR report—published weeks after Trump issued the clemency—highlighted how the administration’s sweeping pardons were granted without regard to existing criminal histories, and in several instances, to individuals with documented patterns of predatory or violent behavior.
A Pattern of Recidivism and High-Risk Conduct
These cases represent some of the most disturbing examples of post-pardon criminal behavior among January 6 defendants: new offenses that include targeting minors, possessing sexually exploitative materials, and serving long-term sentences for child rape. They show that Trump’s mass pardons did not simply erase January 6 consequences; in multiple documented instances, they removed accountability from individuals who later posed serious risks to public safety.
Deadly Driving, Theft, and Other Serious Offenses
Shane Jason Woods – Fatal DUI Crash Resulting in Homicide Charges
Shane Jason Woods, previously charged for assaulting both a police officer and a journalist during the January 6 attack, later faced far more serious allegations unrelated to the Capitol. As reported by the Chicago Sun-Times, Woods was charged with reckless homicide and aggravated driving under the influence after a 2022 crash that killed a woman in Illinois:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2025/04/30/shane-woods-lauren-wegner-jan-6-capitol-riot-murder-trial.
Woods had already been sentenced for his January 6 conduct but later received Trump’s clemency. Prosecutors in Illinois proceeded with the homicide case, which carried significantly higher penalties than his earlier federal charge.
Emily Hernandez – Fatal Drunk-Driving Collision Leading to a 10-Year Sentence
Emily Hernandez, known for carrying the broken “Speaker Pelosi” nameplate during the Capitol breach, was arrested in a separate incident involving a wrong-way drunk-driving crash that killed a woman in Missouri. According to USA Today, Hernandez pleaded guilty to DWI causing death and was sentenced to 10 years in prison:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/01/30/emily-hernandez-sentenced-fatal-car-crash/78047420007/.
The fatal crash occurred after Hernandez had been charged for her role in January 6. Trump’s pardon removed the federal consequences of her Capitol conduct, but state prosecutors went forward with the homicide-related case.
Brent John Holdridge – Major Copper-Wire Theft Case
Brent John Holdridge, whose January 6 case had been dismissed after receiving a Trump pardon, was later arrested in Humboldt County, California, for his alleged involvement in a large-scale copper-wire theft operation. Local outlet KRCR reported that Holdridge was charged with burglary, grand theft, and possessing tens of thousands of dollars of stolen industrial wire:
https://krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/eureka-local-news/arrest-made-in-major-copper-wire-theft-in-arcata.
Deputies recovered substantial amounts of stolen copper from the scene, and investigators connected multiple thefts to the operation.
Additional Theft, Weapons, and Felony Cases Among Pardoned Individuals
CREW’s investigation also identified other individuals who faced new criminal allegations after receiving Trump’s clemency. These included charges involving illegal weapons possession, burglary, and other felony-level offenses documented through court records and local reporting compiled in the organization’s review:
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/at-least-10-pardoned-insurrectionists-face-other-criminal-charges/.
While the severity of these cases varies, they demonstrate that the post-pardon offenses were not confined to political extremism or threats. Instead, they included deadly driving, large-scale property crimes, and weapons-related charges, all of which reflect broader risks created when clemency is issued without vetting or constraint.
A Broader Picture of Post-Pardon Risk
Taken together, the cases involving Woods, Hernandez, and Holdridge reveal a pattern of high-impact offenses that emerged after Trump’s pardons were issued. These incidents involved fatalities, major property losses, and significant threats to public safety — illustrating how the effects of the clemency extended far beyond political debates over January 6.
Political and Legal Fallout Over Trump’s Clemency Choices
Watchdog and Congressional Responses
The aftermath of Trump’s mass January 6 pardons has drawn sustained criticism from government watchdog groups and members of Congress. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) described the pardons as a sweeping act that erased accountability for individuals who participated in an attack on democratic institutions, while documenting how several pardon recipients later faced serious criminal charges:
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/at-least-10-pardoned-insurrectionists-face-other-criminal-charges/.
CREW’s findings intensified scrutiny among lawmakers who had already questioned the decision to grant clemency to violent offenders. In the months following the pardons, legal scholars and oversight organizations warned that using the presidential pardon power to shield politically aligned rioters risked sending a message of tolerance for political violence and undermining the rule of law.
Debate Over the Limits and Abuse of Presidential Clemency
While the Constitution grants the president broad clemency authority, Trump’s decision to pardon individuals involved in an attempt to overturn an election has fueled a national debate over whether the pardon power can be abused in ways that threaten constitutional stability. Outlets including Politico reported that Trump’s clemency extended even to individuals convicted of assaulting police during the Capitol riot, prompting legal experts to raise concerns about the precedent such use of power sets:
(Politico link from earlier reporting referenced in outline).
Academic commentary and ethics groups have since argued for reforms, including transparency requirements or limits on pardons issued to individuals whose crimes involve attacks on the functioning of government, although no legislative changes have been enacted.
Republican Dissent and Shifts in Public Opinion
Even within Trump’s own political coalition, there were early signs of concern. Prior to the mass pardons, Vice President JD Vance publicly argued that individuals who committed violence on January 6 should face consequences, a position reported by Politico and cited in subsequent coverage examining internal divisions over clemency.
Public polling following the pardons reflected widespread opposition, with a clear majority of Americans rejecting blanket pardons for January 6 offenders. National outlets noted that even some Republican voters expressed discomfort with absolving those who had assaulted law enforcement officers during an attack on Congress.
Impact on Victims and Communities
For many victims, the pardons carried direct consequences. Families of the individuals killed in drunk-driving crashes, including the case of Emily Hernandez, reported by USA Today, reacted with shock that those involved in the Capitol riot were cleared of federal responsibility only to later cause deadly harm:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/01/30/emily-hernandez-sentenced-fatal-car-crash/78047420007/.
Similarly, the families and communities targeted in cases involving sexual exploitation, major theft, or threats against federal facilities have expressed concern that clemency removed earlier deterrents, enabling later crimes documented by outlets such as HuffPost and WUSA9.
For the FBI, the Edward Kelley case, involving a conspiracy to kill federal agents, reinforced fears that releasing high-risk individuals without further monitoring may have endangered law-enforcement personnel, as detailed in the DOJ press release:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/federal-jury-convicts-man-conspiring-murder-fbi-employees.
A Widening Legal and Ethical Reckoning
Together, the political reactions, watchdog investigations, and community impacts have created an expanding debate over whether Trump’s sweeping January 6 clemency represented a misuse of executive power. Critics argue that the pardons not only eliminated accountability for an attack on Congress but also removed safeguards that, in several documented cases, may have prevented later violent or predatory offenses.
Historical and Constitutional Context
Presidential Clemency in Past Controversies
The power to grant clemency has long been part of the American constitutional system, and it has frequently been at the center of political controversy. Past presidents have faced criticism for high-profile pardons, including Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon after Watergate and Bill Clinton’s final-day pardons, which involved political allies and donors. Those decisions prompted debates over political favoritism and a lack of transparency, though none involved individuals who had taken part in an attack on Congress itself.
Legal scholars have noted that while these episodes drew strong backlash, they remained within the realm of traditional political misconduct. Trump’s January 6 pardons differ because they absolved individuals who participated in violence that directly targeted the constitutional transfer of presidential power. That distinction has shaped how legal experts and ethicists have assessed the long-term impact of the clemency.
What Sets the January 6 Pardons Apart
Trump’s decision to issue broad pardons for January 6 defendants is unprecedented in American history. It involved individuals whose conduct was linked to the interruption of the electoral count and to assaults on federal law enforcement. News organizations including Politico and NPR reported that Trump’s clemency extended to people with records involving violent offenses, extremist threats, sexual crimes, and other serious misconduct.
No prior clemency controversy has involved a president granting pardons to supporters who participated in an effort to overturn his own electoral defeat. The use of the pardon in this case removed accountability for actions that were part of a nationally televised attack on a constitutionally mandated process. The CREW investigation then documented at least ten instances in which those recipients later faced new criminal allegations that included murder plots, child exploitation, fatal drunk-driving crashes, and large-scale theft.
Growing Calls for Reform of the Clemency Power
The fallout from the January 6 pardons has reignited discussions about potential reforms to presidential clemency. Ethics groups and constitutional scholars have suggested measures such as improved transparency for pardon recommendations, limits on self-interested uses of clemency, or amendments requiring congressional oversight in cases involving crimes against democratic institutions.
While none of these proposals have advanced to legislation, the debate has broadened since Trump’s January 6 pardons were issued. The cases that unfolded afterward have become central to arguments that the pardon power, though broad, can still be exercised in ways that undermine public safety, promote impunity, or damage the constitutional order.
A New Test for an Old Constitutional Tool
The January 6 pardons have become a defining test of how far the executive branch can go when using clemency to insulate political allies. Past controversies centered on corruption or favoritism. This one involves violence at the Capitol, the disruption of the electoral vote count, and a documented wave of new serious offenses committed by some of the individuals who received clemency.
These distinctions have turned Trump’s pardons into a broader constitutional question about whether the president’s power can be used to protect those who participated in attacks on the government itself, and whether the system has adequate safeguards to prevent future abuses.
Conclusion: What These Cases Reveal About Power, Impunity, and Risk
The post-pardon criminal records of several January 6 defendants have turned Trump’s mass clemency into a test of how executive power can reshape public safety far beyond the moment it is exercised. The cases documented by CREW, along with reporting from national and local outlets, show that Trump’s pardons did more than nullify the legal consequences of an attack on Congress. They removed accountability for individuals who, in at least ten documented instances, later faced charges for crimes that included murder conspiracies, child sexual exploitation, fatal drunk-driving, major theft, and threats against public officials.
Legal scholars and ethics advocates now point to this period as one of the clearest examples of how presidential clemency can be used in ways that amplify danger rather than mitigate it. Unlike earlier pardon controversies, which centered on political allies or financial misconduct, this wave of clemency involved individuals tied to an assault on the constitutional transfer of power, and subsequently to new, severe criminal conduct. That combination has drawn renewed scrutiny to the boundaries of the pardon power and whether the Constitution provides sufficient guardrails when clemency intersects with political violence.
The longer-term implications remain unresolved. For critics, the post-pardon offenses underscore how sweeping, politically motivated clemency can weaken deterrence and place communities and law-enforcement officers at risk. For constitutional analysts, these cases highlight a structural vulnerability in a system that grants presidents near-total discretion with few avenues for review.
What is clear is that the consequences of the pardons have extended well beyond January 6 itself. They have reshaped debates over executive authority, fueled calls for reform, and raised questions about how democratic institutions should respond when a president uses one of the Constitution’s broadest powers to absolve those who took part in an attack on the government, and who, in several verified cases, went on to commit new and serious crimes after receiving clemency.
Originally published by Brewminate, 11.13.2025, under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
About the Author
