📰 Trump Issues Second Pardon to Jan. 6 Defendant for Separate Gun Offense

Politics | Nov 16 , 2025

Trump Issues Second Pardon in one of the most debated Jan. 6 cases, granting clemency to Daniel Edwin Wilson, who remained in prison despite the earlier blanket pardons given to Capitol riot defendants.

🟦 Who Is Daniel Edwin Wilson?

Wilson, a resident of Louisville, Kentucky, was being investigated for his involvement in the Jan. 6 riot when authorities found six guns and 4,800 rounds of ammunition in his house. Due to prior felony convictions, he was barred from possessing firearms.

This discovery became a major legal question linked to Trump Issues Second Pardon — whether the Jan. 6 pardons also covered additional crimes uncovered during investigations.

🟦 Why Did Trump Issue the Second Pardon?

A White House official said the search that led to the gun charges “should never have happened,” since it originated solely from Jan. 6 investigative actions.

This clarification paved the way for Trump Issues Second Pardon, making Wilson eligible for release on Friday evening, years before his 2028 sentence completion.

His attorney George Pallas called the pardon “a correction of injustice” and said Wilson can now rebuild his life.

🟦 Background: Wilson’s Charges and Statements

Wilson had pleaded guilty in 2024 to:

• Conspiring to impede or injure police
• Illegally possessing firearms

Prosecutors argued that Wilson planned for the Jan. 6 riot for weeks and communicated with far-right groups like:

• Oath Keepers
• Three Percenters

Messages cited by prosecutors suggested Wilson believed the U.S. was headed toward a civil conflict.

One notable message from Nov. 9, 2020 stated:

“I’m willing to do whatever… I’m willing to sacrifice myself if necessary.”

During sentencing, Wilson said he regretted entering the Capitol but insisted he acted with “good intentions.”

This narrative is central to understanding why Trump Issues Second Pardon became controversial.

🟦 Department of Justice’s Shifting Position

Initially, the Justice Department said the Jan. 6 pardons did not apply to Wilson’s separate gun crime.

But later, the DOJ changed its stance, saying it had received “clarity” on the intent behind the presidential pardons.

Judge Dabney Friedrich, appointed by Trump, criticized this flip-flop and described the DOJ’s argument as “extraordinary,” questioning how a pardon could extend to illegal contraband discovered during investigations.

This debate is key in the discourse around Trump Issues Second Pardon and its legal implications.

🟦 Political Significance

The second pardon highlights Trump’s continued willingness to use presidential power to support individuals involved in the Capitol riot.

Supporters see Trump Issues Second Pardon as a stand against government overreach, while critics argue it encourages extremist behavior.

The case also raises long-term questions about the limits of presidential pardons and their influence on ongoing federal investigations.

📌 FAQs

Q1. Who received the second pardon?

Daniel Edwin Wilson of Kentucky received the second presidential pardon.

Q2. Why did Trump issue the second pardon?

Because the gun charges stemmed from Jan. 6 investigations, and Trump believed those investigations should not have occurred.

Q3. What was Wilson originally charged with?

Illegal firearm possession and conspiracy to impede police.

Q4. Why is “Trump Issues Second Pardon” trending?

Because it reflects Trump’s broader strategy of supporting Jan. 6 defendants and challenging DOJ actions.

Q5. How long was Wilson supposed to stay in prison?

Until 2028, but he was released after the second pardon.

Conclusion

The decision by President Donald Trump to issue a second pardon to Jan. 6 defendant Daniel Edwin Wilson adds a new layer of complexity to an already controversial chapter in U.S. politics. While Trump argues the charges were a result of an improper investigation, critics see this as another example of presidential power used to protect political allies. Wilson’s early release raises questions about the limits of pardons, the shifting stance of the Justice Department, and the long-term impact on future federal cases. As debates continue, this case remains a defining moment in the ongoing national conversation around Jan. 6.