Hernandez Pardon: Constituent Raised Drug Trafficker Pardon, Response Pivoted to Biden

Rule of Law Source: Constituent Letter Response DEFLECTION

Why This Matters for NY-23

Drug trafficking affects rural communities across NY-23. When a constituent asked why Trump pardoned a convicted kingpin who moved 400 tons of cocaine, Langworthy’s response pivoted to attacking Biden instead of addressing the question. Constituents who write their representative deserve responses that engage with their actual concerns — not deflections to unrelated partisan attacks.

Statement

Source: Constituent Letter Response, January 21, 2026 (6:03 PM) - same-day response

Constituent wrote expressing concerns about Trump’s pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández, the former President of Honduras convicted of drug trafficking. She argued the pardon “proved that Trump doesn’t really care about drug trafficking.”

Langworthy’s response:

“As you may know, under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the authority to pardon any federal conviction. On November 28, 2025, President Trump exercised this authority by pardoning the former President of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who had been convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine and related firearms offenses. While I understand your concerns, the President acted within his constitutional authority.”

“I appreciate hearing your views and share your support for upholding the rule of law. However, the pardons that should concern every American are President Biden’s pardon of his own son, Hunter Biden, and the explosive scandal over his Administration’s use of the autopen that pardoned and commuted the sentences of child murderers and other violent offenders.”

The Facts: Who Is Juan Orlando Hernández?

Conviction (SDNY, March 2024):

  • Convicted of conspiring to import cocaine into the United States and weapons offenses
  • Prosecutors proved he received millions in bribes from drug traffickers including the Sinaloa Cartel and Los Cachiros
  • Evidence showed he helped move approximately 400 tons of cocaine through Honduras to the U.S.
  • Federal Judge P. Kevin Castel said at sentencing that Hernández employed “considerable acting skills” to make it seem he opposed drug trafficking while he “deployed his nation’s police and military to protect the drug trade”

Sentence (June 2024):

  • 45 years in federal prison
  • Judge said punishment should warn “well educated, well dressed” individuals who gain power and think status insulates them from justice

The Pardon (November 28, 2025):

  • Trump pardoned Hernández, released from U.S. Penitentiary Hazelton in West Virginia
  • Trump’s stated rationale: “The people of Honduras really thought he was set up… they said it was a Biden administration set-up. And I looked at the facts and I agreed with them.”
  • Hernández was a U.S. ally during his presidency (2014-2022)

Aftermath:

  • Honduras Attorney General ordered arrest of Hernández on 2023 fraud and money laundering charges
  • Interpol assistance requested
  • Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): “Can you think of anyone more reprehensible than that? Selling drugs to this country… This is not an action by a President trying to keep America safe from narcotics.”

The irony: The pardon came as Trump’s administration was carrying out lethal strikes on suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean, killing at least 83 people, justified as an “armed conflict” with cartels.

The Deflection Pattern

Constituent’s concern: Trump pardoned a convicted drug kingpin

Langworthy’s response structure:

  1. Acknowledge the pardon happened
  2. State it was “within constitutional authority”
  3. Pivot: “However, the pardons that should concern every American are…”
  4. Attack Biden administration for unrelated pardons
  5. Standard closing

What the response does NOT address:

  • Whether pardoning a convicted drug trafficker is good policy
  • Whether it contradicts “tough on crime” messaging
  • The constituent’s specific argument about Trump not caring about drug trafficking
  • Any defense of the Hernández pardon on its merits

The Biden Autopen Claim: What the Investigation Actually Found

Langworthy states:

“As a Member of the House Oversight Committee, our investigation into the use of an autopen by the Biden White House has confirmed the use of an autopen for multiple pardons – some without clear approval from the President.”

What the House Republican report actually found (PBS, October 28, 2025):

“The GOP report does not include any concrete evidence that aides conspired to enact policies without Biden’s knowledge or that the president was unaware of laws, pardons or executive orders signed in his name.”

Key findings from the report:

  • “Largely rehashes public information while making sweeping accusations”
  • “Offers few new revelations, instead drawing broad conclusions from unanswered questions”
  • Does not include full transcripts of testimony
  • “Does not offer any concrete instances of the chain of command being violated or a policy being enacted without Biden’s knowledge”

Legal experts on autopen validity (Reuters, TIME):

  • 2005 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel guidance: President can sign via autopen; what matters is intent, not whose hand held the pen
  • Stanford Law Professor Bernadette Meyler: “The Constitution doesn’t even require that the pardon be written”
  • American University Professor Jeffrey Crouch: “Pardons are final so long as they are valid”
  • Biden told the New York Times he directed his staff to use the autopen due to the large number of clemency orders

Verdict on autopen claim: OVERSTATED - The House Oversight report found no concrete evidence that pardons were issued without Biden’s knowledge. Langworthy’s characterization goes beyond what the investigation established.

The Double Standard

Trump Pardon (Hernández)Biden Pardons (Autopen)
Langworthy’s framing: “acted within his constitutional authority”Langworthy’s framing: “explosive scandal”
No criticism of the policyClaims pardons were made “without clear approval”
400 tons of cocaine trafficker freedLegal experts: autopen doesn’t invalidate pardons
Constituent’s concern dismissedUsed as deflection from constituent’s actual question

Both presidents have constitutional pardon authority. The constituent asked about the wisdom of one specific pardon - not a legal/constitutional argument about signature methods.

Response Time: Unusually Fast

This letter was sent the same day the constituent wrote (January 21, 2026, 6:03 PM).

This contrasts with documented response times of 75+ days for other constituent letters. The quick turnaround suggests this topic has a pre-written form letter ready for deployment.

Form Letter Evidence

Tracking ID: [YRY2N5-V250K]

Same hidden HTML tracking code as all other documented responses:

<span style="color: white; margin-left: -10000px; position:absolute;
left: -9999999px; opacity: 0; visibility: hidden; display: none !important;">
</span>

Constituent notes: “I get a form letter depending on my email’s topic and yes, I have received some letters multiple times.”

Questions This Raises

  1. Does Langworthy support the Hernández pardon? The letter neither endorses nor criticizes it.

  2. If “upholding the rule of law” is important, how does pardoning someone convicted of trafficking 400 tons of cocaine advance that goal?

  3. Why pivot to Biden when the constituent specifically asked about Trump’s action?

  4. Is “constitutional authority” a sufficient response to policy concerns? (Presidents also have constitutional authority to do things representatives might disagree with.)

  5. Langworthy claims the autopen investigation “confirmed” pardons were made “without clear approval from the President” - but PBS reported the investigation “does not include any concrete evidence” of this. Which is accurate?

  6. How does pardoning Hernández square with the administration’s stated “war on cartels” that has killed 83+ people in Caribbean strikes?

In Plain Language

A constituent asked: Why did Trump pardon a man convicted of trafficking 400 tons of cocaine?

Langworthy’s response:

  1. “The President acted within his constitutional authority” (true but irrelevant to the policy question)
  2. “However, the pardons that should concern every American are Biden’s pardons” (deflection)

The response never says whether Langworthy supports or opposes the Hernández pardon. It never addresses the constituent’s actual argument that the pardon shows Trump doesn’t care about drug trafficking. It just pivots to attacking Biden.

The irony: This pardon came as the Trump administration was conducting lethal strikes against suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean, killing 83+ people. The administration freed a convicted drug kingpin while claiming to wage “war on cartels.”

Sources

  • AP News: “Former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernández freed after Trump pardon” (December 2, 2025)
  • NPR: “Honduras seeks arrest of ex-President Hernández after Trump pardon” (December 9, 2025)
  • PBS NewsHour: “House Republicans unveil Biden autopen report, but offer little new information” (October 28, 2025)
  • Reuters: “Can Trump invalidate Biden actions recorded by autopen?” (December 11, 2025)
  • TIME: “Why Trump Can’t ‘Void’ Biden’s Pardons Because of Autopen”
  • InSight Crime: “The Rise and Fall of Honduras Ex-President Juan Orlando Hernández”
  • U.S. Department of Justice: Hernández conviction and sentencing (2024)
  • Constituent correspondence (January 21, 2026)

Related: Constituent Letter: Hernandez Pardon Response

Note: This entry documents publicly available information from official records, news organizations, and constituent correspondence. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

Research contribution: Julia Schrader (constituent submission)

Last updated: January 21, 2026