Former Wyoming Republican Representative Liz Cheney, who opposed then-President Donald Trump during his initial term and collaborated with then-Vice President Kamala Harris on the campaign trail, may be compelled to testify under oath before a GOP-led House committee, despite having received a preemptive pardon from former President Joe Biden.

Following the establishment of their narrow majority last month, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) directed Republicans to create a new committee tasked with investigating the operations of the January 6 Committee, with Cheney serving as co-chair alongside a panel predominantly composed of Democrats selected by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

Recent reports have indicated that the committee was heavily politicized, diverting attention from the actual causes of the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. It appears that the committee’s members focused on attributing blame solely to Trump while allegedly concealing evidence that could contradict this narrative.

Throughout the committee’s proceedings, Cheney was outspoken in her criticism of Trump. In a June 2022 speech, she warned her fellow party members, asserting, “There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”

In December 2024, the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, led by Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), published a report recommending an investigation into Cheney for possible witness tampering. The report alleged that she had engaged in inappropriate communications with former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson during the committee’s inquiry

On January 20, just prior to leaving office, Biden issued preemptive pardons to members of the January 6 Committee, including Cheney, to protect them from potential political repercussions from the incoming administration. Biden clarified that these pardons should not be seen as an acknowledgment of wrongdoing but rather as recognition of their service.

Nevertheless, legal experts have pointed out a significant implication of presidential pardons: they eliminate the possibility of prosecution.

The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves in criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, a well-established legal precedent from the 1896 Supreme Court case Brown v. Walker stipulates that once a pardon is issued, the individual cannot invoke this privilege, as the pardon effectively absolves them of the criminal liability associated with the offense.

The Cowboy State Daily was the first to highlight Cheney’s potential legal vulnerabilities and the implications of the presidential pardon on her ability to evade testimony. In Cheney’s situation, this suggests that if she receives a subpoena from the new subcommittee, she may be legally obligated to provide testimony regarding her involvement in the January 6 investigation.

During a recent podcast interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, journalist Matt Taibbi remarked that President Biden’s preemptive pardons for Cheney, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and others could potentially have unintended consequences.

Taibbi stated, “The issue with these pardons is that they are a miscalculation. If you want to understand the situation, they have made it significantly easier for us to uncover the truth,” referring to concerns that Biden preemptively pardoned individuals likely connected to criminal activities.

According to Taibbi, legal experts he consulted indicated that these pardons would not permit the recipients to invoke the Fifth Amendment or protect them if they were found to be lying under oath.

“Once the pardon is granted, the individual can no longer plead the Fifth. If they are summoned before a grand jury or a congressional committee, they cannot assert their right against self-incrimination, which means they must provide testimony,” he elaborated.

“This is particularly intriguing because I have been in discussions with criminal defense attorneys, former Senate investigators, and some current Senate investigators, and they all seem to agree on this point,” he continued. “It is quite illogical to grant someone a pardon.”