President Donald J. Trump granted a full and unconditional pardon on March 27, 2025, to Trevor Milton, the former head of Nikola Corporation, for being convicted of 2022 wire and securities fraud. Milton, the one-time hailed electric car visionary, received a four-year jail term in December 2023 for tricking investors on Nikola’s innovation. The pardon, made public has ignited controversies over the presidential pardon powers and raised serious alarms among legal professionals, investors, and the general public.
The Rise and Fall of Trevor Milton and Nikola Corporation
Trevor Milton established Nikola Corporation with the vision of transforming the electric and hydrogen-powered vehicle market. The company received a lot of attention, especially after going public in 2020 by merging with a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC). Milton’s ambitious statements regarding Nikola’s technology, such as a “fully functioning” semi-truck prototype named the Nikola One and a hydrogen-powered pickup truck called the Badger, generated a lot of investor interest. But those claims unraveled when investigations revealed the Nikola One prototype was not functional—infamously rolled down a hill for a marketing campaign—and the Badger was not built from scratch as Milton had claimed.
Milton was convicted on one count of securities fraud and two counts of wire fraud in October 2022. Prosecutors, under U.S. Southern District of New York Attorney Damian Williams, contended that Milton’s false statements were made to artificially inflate the price of Nikola’s stock, misleading retail investors and causing significant financial losses when the reality came to light. Milton resigned in 2020 at the time of the scandal, and Nikola’s reputation took a body blow, eventually compelling the company to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February 2025. Milton’s 2023 four-year prison sentence as a deterrent for startup founders against the “fake it till you make it” method has now been reversed by Trump’s pardon. This legal penalty is now no longer being enforced, allowing Milton to be released.
Trump’s Pardon Power and Its Application
The U.S. Constitution provides the president with broad latitude to issue pardons and reprieves for federal crimes, a power wielded by nearly every president in history. It is one of the most sweeping presidential powers, with limited restrictions, as reported by a 2018 USA Today article; presidents cannot pardon state crimes, and the authority does not extend to civil liabilities. Historically, pardons have played various functions that have included clemency awards to political allies as well as the award of mercy in too severe cases. In 2001, President Clinton, for example, pardoned Edward Downe Jr. for wire and securities fraud and President George W. Bush pardoned Charlie Winters posthumously in 2008.
Trump’s pardon of Milton fits into a broader trend of disputed pardons throughout his administration. Trump recently chastised President Biden for utilizing an autopen to sign pardons as a “disgrace” on X. However, his pardon of Milton, who was convicted of fraud, has been called out in terms of timing and reason, especially against the backdrop of Nikola’s recent bankruptcy and overall distrust in corporate accountability from the public.
Potential Criticisms of the Pardon
Trump’s pardon of Trevor Milton will certainly be roundly criticized. Some of the key criticisms that are likely to arise, all pointing to deeper issues of justice, accountability, and executive power, are considered below.
Undermining Corporate Accountability
One immediate criticism is that the pardon undermines efforts to hold corporate CEOs accountable for fraud. Milton’s case was considered a landmark case in the war on securities fraud, and particularly in the high-stakes world of electric vehicle startups. U.S. Attorney Damian Williams had emphasized that the punishment would serve as a warning to startup entrepreneurs that fraudulently defrauding investors would have catastrophic consequences. Trump’s pardon of Milton is a message that such behavior can be forgiven, potentially sending the wrong signal to other CEOs. Shareholders who lost money because of Nikola’s stock price collapse may feel particularly betrayed, as the pardon appears to prioritize Milton’s freedom over their loss of money.
Perceptions of Favoritism and Political Motivation
Another criticism relies on the perception of favoritism and political motivation behind the pardon. Milton, who is a high-profile business leader, can likely have relationships or influence to fall back on and therefore make it happen, raising questions whether the pardon is offered for political or personal motives rather than justice. Trump’s history of pardoning buddies and unpopular individuals—such as his 2018 pardon of boxer Jack Johnson or his condemnation of Biden’s pardon policies—calls into question whether this move is more about showing loyalty to some business communities than righting a miscarriage of justice. Opponents would argue that the pardon power, intended to correct judicial error or show mercy, is being abused to reward friends of the powerful and connected, further eroding the public’s trust in the legal system’s fairness.
Timing During Nikola’s Bankruptcy
The timing of the pardon, just weeks after Nikola had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February 2025, adds yet another controversy. Nikola’s bankruptcy filing underscored the long-term harm inflicted by Milton’s actions, with the company fighting for survival in the face of market headwinds and a damaged reputation. CEO Steve Girsky mentioned the requirement for further funding to sustain restricted operations, highlighting the company’s vulnerable position. Pardoning Milton at this point can be characterized as tone-deaf since it seems to exonerate him from blame when the company he started—and the investors and workers associated with it—are still bearing the brunt of his fraud. The critics can claim that the pardon ignores the greater impact of Milton’s actions on the stakeholders of Nikola.
Inconsistency with Trump’s Public Position on Fraud
Trump’s move also risks being seen as inconsistent with his public rhetoric regarding fraud and accountability. Trump has long presented himself during his campaigns and presidency as a champion of law and order, railing against fraud and corruption in all walks of life. Granting a pardon to a convicted fraud artist like Milton runs counter to that and can alienate voters who were hoping for more strength on white-collar crime.
Critics might argue that the pardon undermines Trump’s credibility regarding issues of integrity and justice.
Implications for the Pardon Power
The pardon raises broader questions regarding the unlimited character of the presidential pardon power itself. Even though the Constitution gives this authority, there are very few checks against giving accountability to the exercise of the power. Congress can try to influence its power by making oversight mandatory or specifying the Office of the Pardon Attorney budget, but cannot bind the president. Milton’s pardon may spur renewed calls for reform, and critics will insist that such authority should be possessed subject to more transparency or control to prevent abuse. The absence of a publicly disclosed rationale for the pardon—other than the press release itself—raises suspicion that the power is being wielded arbitrarily, maybe setting an unhelpful precedent for presidents to come.
