On December 11, 2025, former President Donald Trump issued a symbolic pardon for Tina Peters, the former Mesa County, Colorado, elections administrator who was convicted last year for her role in a high-profile breach of the county's voting system. The gesture, announced via Truth Social, immediately ignited heated debate across the nation—though, as legal experts and state officials were quick to point out, the pardon itself has no binding effect on Peters' incarceration, since presidential pardon powers do not extend to state crimes.
Peters, a figure who has become a lightning rod for election conspiracy theorists and a cause célèbre among Trump’s most ardent supporters, is currently serving a nine-year sentence. She was convicted under Colorado state law for orchestrating a data breach scheme that was, according to prosecutors, driven by false claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Specifically, Peters was found guilty of allowing an individual affiliated with Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO and a prominent promoter of election fraud theories, to misuse a security card to access the county's election system. She was also convicted of being deceptive about that person’s identity.
Trump’s pardon announcement was characteristically combative. "Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest," Trump declared on social media, repeating his widely debunked claims that the 2020 election was "rigged." He added, "Today I am granting Tina a full pardon for her attempts to expose voter fraud in the rigged 2020 presidential election!" According to Fox News, Trump further criticized Democrats for being "far too happy to let in the worst from the worst countries so they could rip off American taxpayers," and accused them of targeting Peters while ignoring violent crime. "Democrats only think there is one crime – not voting for them! Instead of protecting Americans and their tax dollars, Democrats chose instead to prosecute anyone they can find who wanted safe and secure elections," he wrote.
Yet despite the fanfare, the legal reality remains unchanged. As the Associated Press reported, “Trump’s pardon power does not extend to state crimes like those for which Peters was convicted last year and sentenced to nine years in prison.” In other words, the symbolic pardon carries no legal weight in Colorado, where Peters’ conviction and sentence were handed down by a state court jury. Colorado Governor Jared Polis was unequivocal in his response, previously vowing not to pardon Peters under any circumstances and emphasizing that she must be held accountable for her actions.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold echoed that sentiment. In a statement quoted by Fox News, Griswold said, “Tina Peters was convicted by a jury of her peers for state crimes in a state Court. Trump has no constitutional authority to pardon her. His assault is not just on our democracy, but on states' rights and the American constitution.”
Peters’ legal saga has been closely watched, not just in Colorado but nationwide, as it encapsulates the ongoing battle over the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election and the role of election officials in safeguarding—or, in the eyes of some, undermining—public trust in the democratic process. After her conviction, Peters’ legal team mounted a vigorous campaign to secure her release, arguing that her free speech rights had been violated during the trial. Earlier this week, however, federal Judge Scott Varholak rejected her bid to be released from prison while she appeals her conviction. As reported by Fox News, Judge Varholak wrote, “Ms. Peters raises important constitutional questions concerning whether the trial court improperly punished her more severely because of her protected First Amendment speech. But because this question remains pending before Colorado courts, this Court must abstain from answering that question until after the Colorado courts have decided the issue.”
Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin, has been outspoken in her defense and in his criticism of the legal proceedings. On December 11, Ticktin formally notified President Trump of the pardon and described Peters’ trial as a “travesty” in which she was not permitted to raise her full defense. “Tina Peters deserves justice,” Ticktin wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “I have formally notified President Trump urging a presidential pardon and outlining why Tina is a necessary witness in exposing election misconduct. What happened to her was a travesty, and it’s time to set it right.” In a December 7 letter to Trump, Ticktin reiterated his view that Peters’ trial was fundamentally unfair.
Trump’s symbolic pardon for Peters follows a pattern established just a month prior, when he issued similar gestures for a number of high-profile allies charged in state courts for their roles in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Among those were Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former personal lawyer, and Mark Meadows, his onetime chief of staff. These actions have been widely interpreted as both a show of loyalty to his supporters and a pointed rebuke of the legal system that, in Trump’s view, has been weaponized against him and his allies.
For Peters’ supporters, the pardon is a validation of her actions and a rallying cry in their continued campaign to challenge what they see as a corrupt electoral system. Her refusal to express remorse and her steadfast insistence that she was acting in the public interest have only cemented her status among election conspiracy theorists. As the Associated Press noted, Peters “has been unapologetic about what happened, and her case has become a cause célèbre in the election conspiracy movement. Her allies have for months pressured Trump to try to free her from prison.”
Meanwhile, Colorado state officials remain firm in their opposition to any federal intervention. Last month, Trump’s administration attempted to have Peters moved from state to federal prison—a move that would have opened the door, at least theoretically, to a presidential pardon with more practical effect. State officials, however, opposed the transfer, and a federal magistrate judge rejected Peters’ latest bid for release while her appeal is pending.
The broader implications of the Peters case stretch far beyond Colorado’s borders. It has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over election integrity, states’ rights, and the limits of presidential power. Both sides see in Peters’ fate a reflection of deeper truths about American democracy—one side viewing her as a martyr for transparency, the other as a cautionary tale about the dangers of undermining public trust in elections.
With the 2024 election still fresh in the nation’s memory and the 2028 race already beginning to take shape, the question of how to balance security, transparency, and accountability in the administration of elections remains as contentious as ever. For now, Tina Peters remains behind bars, her legal fate in the hands of Colorado’s courts, while the symbolic battles over her legacy continue to rage.
