There’s a world of difference between a pardon issues to prevent malicious prosecution for non-crimes and one issued to people you’ve been instructing to commit crimes

You’re not wrong, of course, but that’s not how the Constitution is written. The President’s pardon power (for Federal) crimes is absolute, with the only exception being in matters of impeachment. The whole notion of pre-emptive pardons seems silly, but Biden gave one to his son and that seems to have stuck.

However, there is an idea that giving a politically-motivated pardon for an actual crime can backfire, because if someone can no longer be prosecuted for something, it also means they have no reason to take the 5th amendment that prevents them from incriminating themselves under oath. So while individuals might be pardoned, the crime was still committed, and investigators are within their rights to bring charges against people they can prosecute. When the pardoned person is questioned under oath, they have to testify truthfully (with no recourse to the 5th amendment for the crime they were pardoned for) or else they can be prosecuted for perjury… which is a new crime that was not subject to any prior pardon.

So, the pardon power is in serious need of reform. That would take a Constitutional Amendment. But we can do anything in an amendment, as long as Congress and enough States agree. We can even retroactively nullify any pardon given by Trump! I doubt it would get the 38 states required to pass if it contained that clause, but a boy can dream, can’t he?

Also interesting to note that the process of passing an amendment does not require the President at all. It does need a 2/3 majority in both houses before it goes to the States, so it’s not something Democrats can do alone. But it would be the perfect middle finger to Trumpism if they can manage to build enough support to get it passed before Trump leaves office.