Trump Extends Pardons to Riot-Related Convictions

President Trump has added two pardons of people convicted of crimes related to the Capitol riot, one for the second time and the other for threatening to shoot FBI agents, the administration announced Saturday. Ed Martin, a Justice Department pardon attorney and supporter of the Jan. 6, 2021, rioters, revealed the pardons online. The moves represent an expansion of Trump's previous clemency efforts for those prosecuted in connection with the riot, the New York Times reports. The newly pardoned are:

• Daniel Edwin Wilson: The Kentucky militiaman had already received a presidential reprieve for his actions at the Capitol. However, Wilson was also convicted on separate weapons charges after federal agents found illegal firearms and ammunition at his home during a riot-related investigation. Wilson's lawyers argued that the initial pardon should have covered these charges, but a federal judge ruled in March that Trump's earlier clemency applied only to offenses directly tied to the Capitol attack. Wilson, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to impede or injure officers, became a cause célèbre among activists supporting the Jan. 6 defendants. He had been sentenced in 2024 to five years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to impede or injure police officers and illegally possessing firearms at his home.

• Suzanne Kaye: The Florida woman was was released from prison last year after serving an 18-month sentence for threatening to shoot FBI agents who contacted her about her possible involvement in the Capitol riot. Court documents state that although Kaye denied being at the Capitol, she posted videos online threatening the agents prior to an interview that she'd agreed to. Prosecutors wrote in court filings that her words "were part of the ubiquity of violent political rhetoric that causes serious harm to our communities," per the AP. A White House official said Kaye suffers from "stress-induced seizures" and experienced one when the jury read its verdict, calling it "clearly a case of disfavored First Amendment political speech being prosecuted and an excessive sentence."