RFK Jr. and Zeldin owe the public answers on Trump pardons

Milton’s pardon erased a court-ordered remedy

Milton was convicted in 2022 of lying to investors about Nikola, his electric-truck company. Trump’s pardon was full and unconditional, and remitted fines, penalties, forfeitures and court-ordered restitution for the specified federal offenses.

The political context warrants scrutiny, not a presumption of a bargain. CBS reported that Federal Election Commission records showed Milton and his wife donated almost $2 million to a committee aligned with Trump’s reelection and $750,000 to the Make America Healthy Again Alliance PAC, aligned with Kennedy’s agenda, before the pardon. Those donations do not establish why Trump granted clemency. They do make it reasonable to ask what contacts and advocacy surrounded the request.

Kennedy’s possible role needs a clear account. Reuters reported that Trump told Milton Kennedy had supported the pardon. Separately, CBS reported that a source close to Kennedy had heard him privately say he would not advocate for pardons. Those competing accounts call for a direct answer from Kennedy, not a conclusion drawn from political donations or rumor.

Zeldin’s role is disputed, too

Trump pardoned Lake in November 2025 after his conviction for conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act. The lawmakers’ letter cited a statement by Lake’s wife that appeared to credit Zeldin with helping bring the request to the White House. A senior EPA official told CBS that Zeldin did not recommend or suggest the pardon and only updated people internally about the case facts.

That disagreement is exactly why the officials should explain their actions. The question is not whether Zeldin had the power to grant a pardon—he did not. It is whether he used his position or access to help influence a request, and what records can show about that role.

There is also a defense of the Lake request. Jeff Daugherty, a Wyoming political consultant and lobbyist who helped Lake’s case, told CBS News, “We followed the process. We submitted the application and there were no special favors.” That is a relevant account, but a public explanation of who communicated with whom would let people assess it rather than simply choose between competing descriptions.

Public answers are the minimum safeguard

A president’s pardon is an exercise of executive power. That authority does not make the conduct of cabinet officials irrelevant when lawmakers are asking whether influence and access displaced the standard review process. Nor do the questions prove either official intervened or received special treatment.

People seeking clemency should not have to rely on political proximity to be heard. The public cannot judge whether access is shaping decisions if officials’ contacts and advocacy stay opaque. Disclosure is not a demand that Kennedy or Zeldin be found at fault; it is how the public can distinguish routine factual updates from efforts to advance a particular request.

Kennedy and Zeldin should answer the lawmakers by Oct. 20, identifying any contacts about Milton’s or Lake’s cases, whether they advocated for either pardon and whether they supported other requests. The lawmakers who sent the letters should make the replies public and seek further oversight if key questions remain unanswered. A court-ordered remedy was remitted in Milton’s case; the officials asked about possible influence owe the public a clear account of their part, if any.