President Trump blasted a reported $50 million contract tied to a pardon push as “totally obnoxious and outrageous,” drawing a hard line against pay-to-play around clemency.
Story Highlights
- Reports say Alina Habba Mildon signed a four-year, $10 million-per-year deal while the Herrera family sought a pardon for Julio Herrera Velutini.
- President Trump called the arrangement “not acceptable” and urged that further payments not be made, according to reporting.
- Mildon denied any role in pardon work and said she never spoke to the White House or Justice Department about a pardon.
- The Justice Department and a White House official reportedly said Mildon had nothing to do with the Herrera pardon.
Trump Condemns Reported $50 Million Arrangement Connected to a Pardon
President Trump publicly condemned a reported contract for his former lawyer, Alina Habba Mildon, tied by timing to a pardon for Venezuelan-Italian banker Julio Herrera Velutini. The New York Times reported the agreement paid $10 million per year for four years, with bonuses, while the Herrera family sought clemency; Trump granted a pardon weeks later. Trump called the deal “totally obnoxious and outrageous” and “not acceptable,” sharpening his stance against any hint of selling access to presidential powers.
Reporting also said Trump pressed that the Herrera family should not pay the remaining contract balance after learning of the arrangement. That reaction signals a broader message: the Trump administration will not tolerate influence peddling around constitutional powers, especially clemency. Conservatives have long warned that elite insiders try to turn Washington favors into private cash. Trump’s response seeks to draw a bright line, even when it involves a onetime member of his legal orbit.
What The Records and Denials Say About Pardon Involvement
While the payment size and timing raised alarms, the available reporting does not prove the contract bought a pardon. Mildon said she was never paid for a pardon, never met anyone at the White House or Justice Department about a pardon, and never did pardon-related work. A Justice Department statement to reporters, echoed by a White House official, said she had nothing to do with the Herrera pardon, which undercuts a simple “money equals pardon” claim. The evidentiary link remains circumstantial.
The New York Times described a proximity between the Herrera family’s hiring and the later pardon, plus the eye-popping compensation. But proximity is not proof. Even critics acknowledged that the chain is based on timing and appearance more than documented cause-and-effect. That is why Trump’s condemnation focused on the appearance and the principle. He rejected the idea that anyone should cash in on the pardon process, which belongs to the presidency, not private brokers.
Constitutional Power, Public Trust, and Guardrails That Matter
The Constitution gives presidents broad pardon power. That power exists to correct injustices and show mercy, not to feed a swamp economy. History shows that controversies arise when private actors market access to clemency, even when no crime can be proved. Trump’s comments respond to that risk. He signaled that outsized paydays around pending clemency will face pushback, because such deals erode trust and fuel the same insider culture many voters want cleaned up.
For readers, two truths can sit together. First, the reported contract and timing look bad and deserve scrutiny. Second, firm denials from Mildon, and statements from the Justice Department and a White House official, say she played no role in the pardon itself. Until more records surface, the clean takeaway is this: Trump condemned the arrangement on principle and pressed to stop further payments. That stance aligns with conservative values of clean government and equal justice.
Sources:
mediaite.com, nytimes.com, usnews.com, yahoo.com
