The Last Prisoner Project’s Pattern of Misleading Claims on Clemency Efforts

By Travis Cullen

In the final week of President Biden’s administration, 2,500 individuals were granted clemency in a sweeping categorical action. Unlike traditional clemency petitions, which require an individual application and review process, these grants were based on pre-determined criteria rather than specific filings. This means that many recipients of Biden’s clemency, including some who had never formally applied, were granted commutations simply because they fit within the category the administration had selected.

Despite this, the Last Prisoner Project (LPP) has publicly taken credit for clemency victories in ways that mislead the public about their actual role. A glaring example is the case of Melvin Garland, a man granted clemency without ever filing a petition. Nevertheless, LPP claimed responsibility for securing his release, presenting him as one of their “constituents” and implying that their direct advocacy led to his commutation. This is a misleading characterization of how Biden’s clemency process worked and raises concerns about LPP’s pattern of taking undue credit for work done by others—or for clemency decisions in which no advocacy was involved at all.

Misrepresenting Clemency Successes

While LPP does provide financial assistance to incarcerated individuals and calls them their “constituents,” that does not equate to securing their clemency. Simply providing funds for a prisoner’s commissary or legal assistance does not mean an organization played a role in a clemency decision, particularly when those decisions were made under a broad categorical framework rather than individual case-by-case advocacy.

Yet, LPP has consistently blurred the lines between advocacy and opportunism by taking credit for victories they had little to no involvement in. This follows a pattern that was also evident during the final days of President Trump’s administration, when LPP falsely claimed credit for several high-profile clemency cases that were actually championed by individuals who were pardoned by Trump and worked closely with the Trump administration to secure releases for nonviolent drug offenders, including those with marijuana convictions.

LPP’s Misleading Public Relations Tactics

The Last Prisoner Project’s model appears to rely heavily on public relations spin rather than substantive legal or political advocacy. Instead of focusing on direct lobbying efforts, legal filings, or comprehensive clemency strategies, LPP amplifies their influence through high-profile celebrity endorsements and social media campaigns, often positioning themselves as the primary driving force behind clemency grants.

This approach has led to significant distortions of reality, where prisoners granted clemency due to external legal and political factors—including blanket clemency orders—are posthumously claimed as LPP success stories. The reality is that many individuals granted clemency under Biden’s categorical action did not have active petitions filed by LPP or anyone else, further exposing the misleading nature of LPP’s claims.

The Broader Impact of LPP’s False Claims

The Last Prisoner Project’s pattern of misrepresentation does a disservice to actual clemency advocates, including those who have worked tirelessly behind the scenes for years to secure relief for marijuana prisoners. Advocacy for clemency is a difficult, strategic process that involves navigating complex legal and political systems—not just sending prisoners commissary money and calling them “constituents.”

By inflating their role in these clemency cases, LPP not only misleads the public and donors but also erases the hard work of other activists and legal teams who have dedicated their careers to criminal justice reform.

Conclusion: Credibility Matters in Clemency Advocacy

The fight for clemency is too important to be reduced to opportunistic branding strategies. While LPP’s mission to support incarcerated marijuana offenders is commendable, its approach to claiming victories it did not earn is both dishonestand harmful to the broader movement for criminal justice reform. If LPP truly wants to make a lasting impact, it should focus on transparency, real advocacy, and giving credit where it is due, rather than misleadingly capitalizing on systemic clemency actions that had little to do with their efforts.

In the end, real justice work is about substance—not self-promotion.