For nearly his entire tenure, President Joe Biden's White House largely steered clear of interfering in federal investigations and prosecutions, sticking to a promise Biden had made as a 2020 candidate, legal experts say. That all changed Dec. 1, when Biden used his presidential pardon power to end federal prosecutions of his son Hunter for any offenses over a 10-year period, including the two cases in which he faced imminent sentencing.

"No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong," Biden wrote in a statement announcing the pardon. The statement continued, "Here's the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice."

The pardon's most immediate effect was to end the federal cases against Hunter Biden. He was found guilty by a Delaware jury of three charges related to lying about his drug use on a federal gun purchase form. Separately, the younger Biden pleaded guilty to charges related to filing and paying taxes from 2016 to 2019. 

The "full and unconditional pardon" that Joe Biden issued covers "offenses against the United States which (Hunter Biden) has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024." This immunizes Hunter Biden against potential efforts by the incoming Trump administration to prosecute him on other matters from his past, such as his work on behalf of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Biden had initially shown restraint in letting the legal cases play out, said Stanley Brand, a Penn State University distinguished fellow in law and government.

"He let the special counsel cases (against Hunter Biden) go forward to trial," Brand said. The pardon came "after the process was completed. This is the 'act of grace' that the Supreme Court has characterized as the pardon power."

And the broad pardon Biden granted his son is linked to Republicans' long-standing efforts to target Hunter Biden, said James Robenalt, a lawyer who has written and taught about the Watergate scandal and presidential power.

Trump "had already made a living attacking Hunter" and has now said he will appoint top officials such as Kash Patel as FBI director, whose rhetoric has echoed the president-elect's on using the federal government's powers to seek vengeance against political enemies, Robenalt said.

Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor emeritus, said Biden's pardon "'interferes' with a prosecution in the sense that it prevents the final act in the case, punishment, from occurring." Bowman said that "the fact that he's the presidents' son shouldn't entitle him to special consideration. And by giving him special consideration, Biden gives cover to Trump to do far worse."

The Hunter Biden pardon could allow Trump to justify similar decisions, because "whatever protections exist to prevent interference are soft policies and 'norms,'" rather than laws, Brand said. 

"Years ago, the White House would not extend pardons without a thorough vetting by an assigned pardon attorney at the Justice Department," said Joan E. Meyer, who is of counsel to the law firm Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP. "That procedure appears to have been abandoned. Today's presidential pardons are haphazard, political and done without any assessment of how it damages the justice system."

Whatever the justification for the pardon, it represents a big enough shift to qualify this pledge as Promise Broken.

RELATED: Joe Biden's Full Flop on pardoning Hunter Biden after saying for months he wouldn't

During his campaign for president, Joe Biden said he would heed concerns that during Donald Trump's administration, the Justice Department sometimes seemed to carry out Trump's goals, rather than impartial justice.

Under Trump's attorney general, William Barr, the department was criticized for bending to presidential pressure when it overturned career prosecutors' sentencing recommendation for Trump associate Roger Stone.

Trump himself asserted his right to intervene in cases. He once tweeted that while Barr had said that Trump " 'has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case,' this doesn't mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!"

We intend to monitor how well the Biden administration adheres to his promise of independence over the long term, but so far at least, its appointees are sticking to the message Biden promised.

When newly confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland addressed Justice Department employees on March 11, his first day on the job, he affirmed his support for longstanding norms of impartiality.

"As I said at the announcement of my nomination, those norms require that like cases be treated alike," Garland said. "That there not be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans; one rule for friends and another for foes; one rule for the powerful and another for the powerless; one rule for the rich and another for the poor; or different rules depending upon one's race or ethnicity."

Other senior Justice Department nominees echoed this theme in their confirmation hearings.

"If I am confirmed, I will dedicate myself to protecting our national security, ensuring that the laws of our country are fairly and faithfully enforced, independent of partisan influence, and that the rights of all Americans are protected," said Lisa Monaco, Biden's pick to be deputy attorney general, in her opening remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 9.

And Vanita Gupta, Biden's nominee for associate attorney general, said at the same hearing, "If confirmed, I will aggressively ensure that the Justice Department is independent from partisan influence."

We will see whether the department lives up to these ideals, but for now, the officials' words show a rhetorical commitment to the promise. We rate it In the Works.