On Thursday, December 11, 2025, former President Donald Trump made headlines once again by announcing he would grant a full pardon to Tina Peters, the embattled former Republican clerk of Mesa County, Colorado. Peters, who was convicted in a Colorado state court last year for her role in a scheme to prove Trump’s false claims of a rigged 2020 election, is currently serving a nine-year sentence in state prison. Trump’s declaration, posted on social media, described Peters as a “Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest,” and stated, “Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!”
Yet, as the dust settled, it became clear that Trump’s announcement was more symbolic than substantive. According to TIME, presidential clemency powers only extend to federal crimes, not state convictions. Peters, the only Trump ally currently imprisoned in connection with efforts to overturn the 2020 election, was convicted in Colorado state court, placing her out of Trump’s legal reach. This critical distinction was echoed by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, who stated, “No President has jurisdiction over state law nor the power to pardon a person for state convictions. This is a matter for the courts to decide, and we will abide by court orders.” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser reinforced this sentiment, calling Trump’s effort an “outrageous departure” from the Constitution and highlighting the state’s independent sovereignty over its criminal justice system.
Peters’ saga began in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, when she became a vocal supporter of Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud. In October 2024, she was sentenced to nine years in state prison for her role in breaching Mesa County election equipment after the vote. The charges against her were serious: attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, election fraud, and identity theft. According to KJCT 8, Peters’ actions were aimed at uncovering evidence that the presidential election had been stolen—a claim debunked by experts, including those from Trump’s own administration.
The legal battle over Peters’ fate has become a constitutional flashpoint. Her attorney, Peter Ticktin, has argued that Trump’s clemency powers are not confined to federal crimes, despite the overwhelming legal consensus to the contrary. “Why in the world would the president not be able to pardon for state offenses, especially in a situation such as this, where you’ve got someone who’s charged with offenses because of a federal election?” Ticktin asked, as reported by KJCT 8. In a letter to Trump sent days before a federal judge rejected Peters’ request for release, Ticktin asserted that Peters was “innocent and wrongfully persecuted,” and claimed she had received death threats and was attacked three times while in prison.
Ticktin’s constitutional argument hinges on the idea that the nation’s founders intended for the president’s pardon power to be broad, extending “in all of the United States.” However, the prevailing view—reflected in the Constitution’s language and resources such as constitution.congress.gov—is that the president may pardon only “offenses against the United States,” meaning federal crimes. Ticktin admitted, “the question of whether a president can pardon for state offenses has never been raised in any court,” but maintained that the issue could ultimately land before the US Supreme Court, which he believes would see it as a significant question of constitutional interpretation.
Despite these arguments, legal experts and Colorado officials remain unconvinced. Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubenstein called Trump’s move “essentially symbolic,” emphasizing that only Governor Polis has the authority to pardon state offenses. Polis, for his part, has stated the state will abide by whatever the courts decide. Meanwhile, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold was even more direct: “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.”
The controversy has also drawn attention from the federal level. In March 2025, senior Justice Department officials encouraged a federal judge to give “prompt and careful” consideration to releasing Peters from state prison while her federal lawsuit was pending. The officials noted, “Reasonable concerns have been raised about various aspects of Ms. Peters’ case,” and said the Justice Department would review whether the prosecution was “oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.” However, after months of hearings, a federal judge in Denver rejected Peters’ request for release on Monday, December 8, 2025.
For Peters’ supporters, the case has become a rallying point. Ticktin described Peters as “kind of a hostage” and a “political prisoner.” Trump, too, has repeatedly referred to her in these terms, calling her “horribly and unjustly punished.” These characterizations have fueled ongoing debates about the boundaries of presidential power, the independence of state judicial systems, and the lingering impact of the 2020 election’s contested aftermath.
Trump’s announcement is not his first foray into controversial pardons related to the 2020 election. On the first day of his second term, he issued a pardon for nearly all 1,600 people charged in connection with the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol—actions that were possible because those charges were federal. Peters’ case, by contrast, remains firmly within the jurisdiction of Colorado’s courts and governor.
As the legal wrangling continues, Ticktin expects the next step will be for the Trump administration to submit the pardon to Colorado’s department of corrections, though he anticipates the department will refuse to release Peters. The dispute, he argues, could one day reach the Supreme Court, where the limits of presidential pardon powers may finally be tested.
This unfolding drama, with its constitutional stakes and political overtones, has thrust Tina Peters and her legal team into the national spotlight, raising fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the integrity of the American electoral system. Whether the courts will be called upon to settle the matter remains to be seen, but for now, Peters remains in a Colorado prison, her fate the subject of fierce debate and legal uncertainty.
In the end, the case of Tina Peters is about more than one person’s conviction; it’s a test of the boundaries between state and federal authority, the reach of presidential power, and the lingering shadows cast by the 2020 election. As the story continues to unfold, all eyes remain on Colorado—and on the courts that may soon be asked to decide just how far a president’s pardon can reach.
