The Cognitive Dissonance of January 6th Pardons

Source: deeznutz1/Pixabay

President Trump has issued pardons or commutations for over 1,500 defendants from January 6. Despite Trump having said he was going to do it, the decision is causing shock, outrage, and despair. And I believe the decision is also causing an unprecedented amount of cognitive dissonance in many individuals, including Trump and those who have supported him.

Cognitive dissonance refers to a psychological discomfort experienced when caught in an inconsistency. It’s a feeling of hypocrisy common in politics (Stalder, 2020). The inconsistency in question is how President Trump was able to proceed with the pardons when he represents the “party of law and order” and publicly promised that he would “always back the blue” (Kaste, 2024).

Many of the president's longtime supporters, whether they are politicians, police officers, or everyday voters, also self-identify as pro-police. So they must be feeling some level of dissonance in their support for a leader who pardoned or freed those who assaulted police officers, leading to serious injuries and suicides.

Modes of Dissonance Reduction

Cognitive dissonance research has identified numerous ways that people caught in this uncomfortable situation can try to reduce the discomfort (McGrath, 2017). Many of these represent cognitive biases of some kind, although there are unbiased ways to tackle dissonance as well (Stalder, 2018). In the aftermath of President Trump’s pardons, there has been an abundance of illustrations of these modes of dissonance reduction. I highlight several.

Social Comparison: Many people have responded to queries about Trump’s pardons by pointing to Joe Biden’s pardons. Although that comparison seems a false equivalency, finding others who behaved similarly, or claiming that others behaved similarly, can reduce dissonance (Stalder and Devine, 2002; Stalder, 2012).

External Justification (or Rationalization): One of the classic ways to reduce dissonance is to make excuses for the perceived bad behavior. For example, Trump has cited multiple external factors for his decision, including prison conditions and sentences he felt were excessive (Doyle, 2025; Wendling, 2025).

Trivialization: Conveying that the January 6 riot was not as big a deal as liberals think is an example of trivialization, which can also include the claim that the rioters’ sentences were too extreme. Some politicians have downplayed the tragic events by saying things like it’s time to look “at the future, not the past” (Jimison, 2025).

Distorting Perceptions: Some downplaying can slide into another classic mode where there are changes in perceptions of some part of the dissonant situation. A common example is misremembering or distorting the events of January 6, what many refer to as a collective GOP “amnesia” (Barabak and Chabria, 2024).

Attitude Bolstering: A lesser-known mode is to bolster the attitude that is inconsistent with the bad behavior (Sherman and Gorkin, 1980). The “back the blue” attitude is dissonant with Trump’s pardons, so some supporters have strongly asserted how “back the blue” they still are, such as Senator Thom Tillis, who responded to a query about the pardons by saying he was pushing legislation to increase penalties for assaulting an officer (Jimison, 2025).

Cognitive Dissonance Essential Reads

When Healthcare Providers Face Conflicting Information

We're All Hypocrites, and That's a Good Thing

Attitude Change: Another classic mode involves a change in attitude, which has been seen in those who have backed down from full support for Trump. Some high-profile Trump supporters have disagreed with the pardons (Fox, 2025). A Trump-endorsing police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, has also expressed discouragement about the situation (Habeshian, 2025).

Denial of Responsibility: Some have responded to queries about the pardons by saying it was not them but rather the president who made the decision (Wong et al., 2025). That’s certainly true, and asserting it is yet another research-based mode of dissonance reduction.

Waiting It Out: Many people are dodging the question or are keeping quiet about the issue (Fox, 2025). It’s a wait-and-see approach, essentially kicking the cognitive can down the road.

Multiple-Mode Approach

Many research studies focus on, or only give participants the chance to use, a single mode of dissonance reduction. In real-life dissonance, there can be a multiple-mode defensiveness in which individuals cycle through many different responses.

Senator Susan Collins criticized President Trump’s decision but also compared it to Joe Biden’s family pardons (Wong et al., 2025). The Fraternal Order of Police similarly criticized Trump’s decision while equally criticizing Biden at the same time (Habeshian, 2025). The current Capitol Police chief displayed three modes: criticizing Trump, praising police, and criticizing Biden (Yilek, 2025). By multiple accounts, Trump himself appears to have rationalized, trivialized, distorted, bolstered his pro-police position, and criticized Biden (Doyle, 2025; Fox, 2025).

In Fairness to Individuals

I don’t want to stereotype or make blanket statements about Trump supporters or even all those convicted from January 6. There are, of course, individual differences among them, and I cannot read the minds of even those I’ve quoted in this article, including President Trump.

Not everyone who supports both Trump and the police is necessarily feeling the same level of dissonance. Most of those arrested and convicted did not physically assault police. It’s not unfair to suggest that some rioters got swept up in the crowd, although it cannot excuse what happened.

In case it helps those in despair who are feeling an absence of justice, it can be pointed out that most of the pardoned individuals had already served their sentences or had not received jail time, leaving about 250 released from prison (Wendling, 2025). Of course, it’s concurrently true that the convictions of those pardoned will be wiped from the record, and 250 is still a lot.

In Sum

“Dissonance” is not a dirty word. Life is too complicated for us to be perfectly consistent all the time. Feeling dissonance is normal, and politics is hard. Both Democrats and Republicans are susceptible to dissonance when their leader violates a central party norm.

But that doesn’t mean that dissonant behaviors are acceptable nor that every mode of dissonance reduction is equally constructive. Being aware of dissonance processes can help us choose the best mode of reduction for ourselves and may help us better evaluate politicians’ responses during difficult times like now.