The Senate is against it, but the Constitution is for it: why Trump can pardon Bankman-Fried despite the resolution
The U.S. Senate unanimously passed Resolution S. Res. 772, condemning any possibility of pardoning Sam Bankman-Fried. The initiative was led by Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ruben Gallego, key figures on the Subcommittee on Digital Assets. The document explicitly states that the FTX founder does not deserve a pardon or a commutation of his sentence under any circumstances.
The reason for such a sharp reaction was Bankman-Fried's official request for a pardon, filed in 2026 with the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of the Pardon Attorney. In his application, he seeks clemency after serving his sentence, but no response has been received yet. Lummis emphasized in an official comment that the billionaire "spent billions of FTX clients' money on a lavish lifestyle" and is now trying to evade responsibility without deserving forgiveness.
Political Pressure vs. Legal Reality
Despite the Senate's loud and unanimous stance, the resolution has no binding legal force. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president virtually unlimited pardon power, except in cases of impeachment. The Supreme Court ruled as early as 1866 in *Ex parte Garland* that Congress cannot restrict this power or exclude any categories of convicts from it.
Thus, the Senate resolution is a gesture of political pressure, not a legal prohibition. The White House administration retains full discretion. Notably, Donald Trump has not yet given any signals of willingness to pardon Bankman-Fried. However, he has previously pardoned other major figures from the crypto industry—Changpeng Zhao and Ross Ulbricht—setting a precedent.
My expert perspective: The Senate resolution is more of an attempt to protect the reputation of regulators and show voters that politicians are "on the side of justice." But in reality, Bankman-Fried's fate now depends entirely on Trump's political will. If the trend of pardoning crypto figures continues, we may see another high-profile move that fundamentally changes the perception of legal consequences for industry executives.