Donald Trump and Joe Biden may not share much in common, but their responses to high-profile legal battles reveal a striking similarity — both have criticized the justice system when it has targeted someone close to them.
On Sunday night, President Biden announced a “full and unconditional” pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, while condemning what he described as an unjust prosecution.
“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can conclude anything other than that he was singled out solely because he is my son – and that is wrong,” Biden stated.
His criticism of a politicized legal system mirrors those often made by Trump, particularly during the New York case involving hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. That trial resulted in Trump’s conviction on multiple felony counts for falsifying business records to hide campaign finance violations.
“What’s going on in New York is an outrage,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally. “It’s selective prosecution for political purposes.”
What are the parallels between the two cases?
The Hunter Biden cases and Trump’s hush-money case share notable parallels that have intensified criticism of the judicial process.
Both were brought to trial in 2024, years after the alleged offenses occurred. Trump’s payments to Stormy Daniels date back to 2016, while Hunter Biden’s contested handgun application was filed in 2018, and his fraudulent tax returns spanned from 2016 to 2019.
Each case underwent unexpected turns before reaching trial. The New York investigation into Trump appeared likely to be abandoned after Alvin Bragg replaced Cyrus Vance as Manhattan District Attorney. Similarly, Hunter Biden’s plea agreement, which would have involved an admission of guilt without prison time, fell apart at the last moment due to questions raised by the presiding judge.
Both cases also involved novel applications of existing laws. In Trump’s case, the underlying campaign finance violations were federal issues, not state crimes, and had already been dismissed by federal prosecutors. Meanwhile, gun application cases like Biden’s are rarely prosecuted without links to more severe offenses, and his tax violations had been addressed through back payments and fines—an approach that typically avoids criminal charges.
Trump’s legal team explicitly connected the two cases in a filing on Tuesday, citing Hunter Biden’s pardon as grounds to dismiss Trump’s New York conviction.
“President Biden argued that ‘raw politics has infected this process and led to a miscarriage of justice,’” the filing stated. “These remarks are an extraordinary condemnation of President Biden’s own Department of Justice.”
The filing concluded emphatically: “This case should never have been brought.”
What sets the two cases apart?
There are significant differences between the two cases. For one, Hunter Biden has never held public office. Additionally, the New York hush-money case is just one of several prosecutions of Donald Trump, many of which involve more serious and recent alleged crimes. However, Trump has not differentiated between them, labeling all investigations against him as politically motivated “witch hunts” aimed at undermining his electoral chances.
Despite these distinctions, both Trump and the Bidens have questioned whether political bias influenced their cases. While Democrats have maintained that Trump’s trial was legitimate, Republicans have argued that Hunter Biden’s gun and tax cases reflect justice being served.
Kevin McMunigal, a Case Western Reserve University law professor and former assistant U.S. attorney, points out that the perception of politics affecting prosecutorial decisions is largely unfounded. However, he acknowledges that the public may not fully understand the complex considerations behind decisions to file criminal charges.
“Congress and state legislatures often pass criminal statutes without repealing outdated ones due to political pressures,” McMunigal explains. “Everyone wants to appear tough on crime, which leaves statute books filled with crimes that prosecutors rarely pursue.”
This lack of public awareness, he adds, makes it difficult for people to grasp why some laws are selectively enforced.
Such misunderstandings, combined with the rhetoric from both sides of the political spectrum, contribute to perceptions of a double standard in the American justice system—especially in high-profile cases involving government figures or their families, where political figures themselves often inflame the controversy.
What could Biden’s pardon mean for Trump?
Whether or not the indictments were a fair exercise of prosecutorial discretion, both Donald Trump and Hunter Biden were convicted of their respective crimes.
However, Hunter Biden’s pardon ensures he will face no consequences, while Trump, poised to return to the White House, seems increasingly likely to evade sentencing for his conviction. His high office has already led to the dismissal of federal cases against him.
These outcomes reinforce public perceptions of a double standard for the wealthy and powerful, raising valid concerns.
American confidence in the justice system is eroding, says John Geer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University and director of its Project on Unity and American Democracy. While accusations of selective prosecution may seem significant, Geer argues they are “a pebble thrown in a very large lake” compared to deeper systemic issues.
“Justice has never been blind,” he explains. “There have been times when it has been more even-handed, but those periods are exceptions, not the rule.”
Geer points out that the current controversy reflects a broader public distrust in political institutions, including Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court.
Trump has exploited this growing skepticism, railing against the government “swamp” and promising sweeping reforms his supporters believe career politicians are unwilling or unable to deliver.
In this context, Trump’s ongoing complaints of political prosecutions—and Biden’s recent adoption of similar rhetoric—highlight a larger crisis of American faith in government. Both leaders have used these narratives to their advantage when confronted with legal challenges.
Biden’s embrace of Trump-like language to justify his pardon of Hunter Biden could inadvertently bolster Trump’s efforts to dismantle the very institutions Biden has long served and pledged to uphold. This convergence of rhetoric and strategy underscores the fragile state of trust in American democracy.
