Pardon Power—How Trump Freed NFL Legends

President Trump just used a clear constitutional power to wipe clean the records of five former NFL stars—reigniting the national debate over justice, redemption, and whether fame should matter.

Quick Take

On Feb. 12, 2026, President Donald Trump issued pardons to five former NFL players, including a posthumous pardon for Billy Cannon.
The pardons covered offenses ranging from perjury and counterfeiting to drug trafficking-related convictions.
White House pardon adviser Alice Marie Johnson announced the decision and framed it around second chances and rehabilitation.
Reports noted Cowboys owner Jerry Jones personally notified former Dallas lineman Nate Newton about his pardon.

What Trump Signed and Who It Covers

On February 12, 2026, President Donald Trump granted pardons to five former National Football League players: Joe Klecko, Nate Newton, Jamal Lewis, Travis Henry, and Billy Cannon, who was pardoned posthumously. The cases span decades and multiple types of criminal conduct, including perjury in an insurance-fraud investigation, drug trafficking conspiracies, and counterfeiting tied to financial collapse. Multiple reports said the White House did not provide additional detail on the motivations behind the selections.

Because pardons are an executive act, they take effect immediately and are typically understood as forgiveness for the federal offense at issue, restoring certain civil standing in practical ways even when the underlying conduct remains part of public history. For public figures, that can mean fewer barriers to travel, business opportunities, and reputational repair. For families, a posthumous pardon can function more as a moral and historical statement than a direct legal remedy.

Alice Marie Johnson’s Message and the Administration’s Framing

White House pardon adviser Alice Marie Johnson publicly announced the pardons and leaned heavily on a second-chance theme. In her statement, she linked the idea of redemption to football’s culture of perseverance, thanking President Trump and describing a country strengthened by “grit” and “grace.” The available reporting does not include added White House explanation beyond that framing. Without more detail, observers are left to judge the decision primarily through the public record of the convictions and the administration’s stated emphasis on rehabilitation.

That matters because the credibility of clemency often rests on process: what standards were applied, what evidence of rehabilitation was considered, and whether victims or affected communities were consulted. The current coverage does not describe any formal criteria used in these five cases, nor does it cite input from prosecutors or victims. What is clear is that the message coming from the pardon office focused on mercy and restoration rather than on re-litigating the seriousness of drug trafficking and related crimes.

The Individual Cases: From Perjury to Drug Trafficking to Counterfeiting

The convictions described in reports vary widely. Joe Klecko, a Jets great later inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2023, pleaded guilty to perjury connected to an insurance-fraud probe. Nate Newton, a key lineman on three Super Bowl–winning Cowboys teams, was tied to a marijuana trafficking incident in the early 2000s. Jamal Lewis, the 2003 NFL Offensive Player of the Year, was linked to an attempted drug deal shortly after being drafted in 2000.

Travis Henry’s case involved a cocaine conspiracy tied to a multi-state ring, according to summaries in the reporting. Billy Cannon’s case reached back to the mid-1980s, when the former Heisman Trophy winner resorted to counterfeiting amid financial ruin; Cannon later died in 2018 and still received a posthumous pardon. Taken together, the set of cases blends nonviolent white-collar conduct with drug crimes that conservatives often connect to community harm and the breakdown of public order.

Why the Constitution Gives Presidents This Authority—and Why It Stays Controversial

The pardon power comes directly from Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, giving presidents broad clemency authority. The Justice Department maintains a running list of clemency grants for Trump’s 2025–present term, reflecting an ongoing pattern of pardons and commutations for a range of offenses, including drug crimes. That constitutional design is intentionally strong, but it also guarantees controversy because it can override outcomes reached by courts, juries, and negotiated plea agreements.

For a conservative audience, the core tension is familiar: limited government and constitutional governance on one hand, and the need for public safety and equal treatment under the law on the other. The reporting available does not show evidence of corruption or illegality in this decision, and a president’s clemency is not unusual in itself. Still, when clemency touches drug trafficking, Americans understandably ask how deterrence, accountability, and rehabilitation are being balanced.

NFL Networks, Public Perception, and the Fairness Question

Several reports highlighted that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones personally notified Nate Newton about his pardon, a detail that underscores how well-connected public figures can have advocates who elevate their cases. The stories do not claim that Jones influenced the decision-making process, but the anecdote reflects a broader reality: ordinary Americans without fame or powerful contacts may struggle to get similar attention. That disparity is a political flashpoint even when the constitutional action itself is fully lawful.

President Donald Trump on Thursday pardoned five former professional football players — one posthumously — for various crimes ranging from perjury to drug trafficking. https://t.co/hAeJXgFSTQ

— Local 4 WDIV Detroit (@Local4News) February 13, 2026

At the same time, supporters argue that clemency is designed for exactly this kind of judgment call—recognizing rehabilitation, life changes, and the possibility that punishment has already done its job. Critics, where quoted indirectly through the general debate, tend to question whether celebrity cases crowd out less-visible applicants. The current reporting offers limited insight into comparative standards or how these five cases were prioritized, so conclusions about fairness remain constrained by incomplete public detail.