Pardons, Politics, and Paradoxes
Or: What Do Drug Cartels, Ross Ulbricht, and Jan. 6 Rioters Have in Common?
My first, and brief, stint as a cultural opinion piece writer came about when I was a copy messenger at the Indy Star in the early 1990s. I somehow convinced the editorial staff to give me a shot at filling in for the regular writer of the weekend opinion column that ran on the front page of the City/State section when he was on vacation. I got to do this 4-5 times, which was pretty cool for a guy in his early 20s, even if the pay was only $40 per column.
Technology has changed a lot since then. Heck, the job “copy messenger” was probably replaced by technology within a few years of my stint there. When I started writing this time around, I was already experimenting with GenAI as a tool to combat disinformation. Using it as a tool for editing, feedback, and fact-checking my writing was the obvious thing to do.
And that’s how I inadvertently taught ChatGPT how to write like me.
When I put some disorganized thoughts into ChatGPT on my phone earlier this week to serve as fodder for my next Substack post, I was mildly surprised when it replied with a complete draft of the piece. I read it. I liked it. I thought, “Give the robot a shot, just like you were given a shot in olden times, before the turn of the century.”
So I “flipped the script” and took the feedback and editorial role. I was a lot more prescriptive than my Indy Star editors were back in the day. I provided the overarching idea and the detailed chain of inconsistencies to explore. My feedback outlined how to build the argument step by step, and I directed how the tone should merge analysis with sharp critiques and humor. When I asked ChatGPT for its analysis of our relative contributions, it said “I’d estimate the contributions as about 60/40 in your favor.” Click here to see the full transcript of the session. You can even pick up the conversation where I left off.
I didn’t write one word of the article that follows, but I 100% agree with every word (and it sure sounds a lot like me). I also let ChatGPT create the image for the article. I find it a bit… odd. But, hey, the robot deserves a little creative license, am I right?
Declaring Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations is a bold move. For decades, the war on drugs has targeted users more than distributors, but this action flips the script: go after the source of the problem. Trump’s first day in office shows he’s taking drug peddling seriously—no tolerance for poison dealers destroying American lives.
But wait. Shortly after his inauguration, Trump pardoned Ross Ulbricht, who ran Silk Road, a digital marketplace infamous for drug distribution. Ulbricht might not have carried a machete or ordered assassinations like cartel leaders, but he was still one of the most prolific drug distributors in recent history.
So maybe it’s not about the drugs. Maybe it’s about the violence. Trump is obviously anti-violent crime! But… that theory doesn’t hold up for long, either.
Violence is Bad, Except When It’s Not
Cartels leave a trail of bodies wherever they operate, from rural Mexico to American border towns. Labeling them terrorists, with all the legal and military implications that brings, signals a serious commitment to ending that violence. Surely, this is where Trump draws the line: drugs are bad, but violence is worse.
But then we look at his pardons of Jan. 6 rioters, some of whom were undeniably violent. Officers were assaulted, the Capitol was ransacked, and property was destroyed. These weren’t peaceful protests—they were chaotic and, in some cases, deadly. Yet Trump granted clemency to over 1,500 participants, calling them “patriots.”
So maybe it’s not about the violence, either. Maybe the issue is something bigger: the justice system itself.
Equal Justice Under the Law? Not Exactly.
The whole point of the rule of law is that it applies equally to everyone. Break the law, face the consequences—whether you’re a cartel kingpin, a tech entrepreneur, or a flag-waving protestor who decided to storm the Capitol. But Trump’s actions send a very different message: if you’re on his side—or useful to his agenda—you’ll get a pass. If you’re not, well, good luck.
Let’s not forget Trump’s own fraught history with the justice system. Civil fraud cases, criminal indictments, special counsel investigations—it’s been a rough few years for him. (We could list the cases, but this is an article, not a novel.) Despite it all, he managed to convince a jury of voters to put him back in the White House.
Trump might seem like a champion against weaponizing the justice system for political ends. After all, he’s been its victim! But… his administration's actions suggest otherwise.
Weaponizing Justice for Political Ends
Shortly after taking office, the Department of Justice issued a memo directing federal prosecutors to investigate state and local officials who resist federal immigration enforcement. This move threatens legal action against those who don't comply with federal directives, signaling a willingness to use the justice system as a political weapon.
This ties everything together. Trump isn’t anti-drug dealing. He pardoned Ross Ulbricht. He isn’t anti-violence. He pardoned Jan. 6 rioters. And he certainly isn’t against using the justice system for political purposes. He’s actively encouraging it.
So what do all these moves have in common? They’re not about drugs, violence, or justice. They’re about power.
The Real Motive—Power and Chaos
Drug cartels labeled as terrorists? That’s a pretext for militarizing the border and justifying intervention in Central America, all while firing up his base. Ulbricht’s pardon? A nod to Silicon Valley libertarians and tech oligarchs, whose support Trump might need. The Jan. 6 rioters? They’re not just protesters—they’re Trump’s personal militia. Groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were key players on Jan. 6, and they remain loyal to him.
And weaponizing the justice system? That’s about keeping his political enemies tied up in courtrooms so they’re too distracted to push back.
It all comes back to Trump’s core strategy: sow chaos, consolidate power, and keep the spotlight fixed on him. None of these moves are inconsistent when you realize they’re all in service of one goal—Trump’s own interests.
On Day 1, Trump showed us exactly who he is: not anti-drug dealing, not anti-violence, and not anti-political weaponization. His executive orders and pardons aren’t about justice or protecting Americans. They’re about maintaining power, keeping his base energized, and making sure we’re all too busy dissecting his moves to stop him.
In Trump’s world, contradictions aren’t a bug—they’re a feature. While we argue over whether his actions are hypocritical or strategic genius, he’s already moved on to the next headline. And as long as we’re distracted, he wins.
Creative Process Transparency: This article was collaboratively written using generative AI. The argument and framing were developed by me, while the body of the piece was drawn directly from ChatGPT-generated analysis with minimal modification. Final edits and narrative choices remain my own. Based on our established attribution model, this article reflects an approximately 80/20 division of contributions.
Clear, concise, accurate. Sharing on Bluesky.