Former President Donald Trump has stirred significant controversy with his announcement regarding Joe Biden’s use of the autopen. Trump claimed he would nullify about 92% of Biden’s actions, including executive orders and pardons, that were supposedly signed by this mechanical device. This statement has ignited a political firestorm and raised questions about the constitutional authority behind such bold claims.
The assertion gained traction quickly after a tweet from @FLVoiceNews which read, “Trump nullifies about 92% of Biden’s autopen orders, including pardons! | FLV Radio.” Such statements tie into ongoing investigations by Congress that probe Biden’s mental fitness and whether he operated with the necessary autonomy while in office.
Trump’s statements allege that Biden was not involved in crucial executive actions but relied on aides to utilize the autopen. “Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen… is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect,” it states. This claim escalates the narrative that Biden’s aides overstepped their bounds, accusing them of illegally commandeering presidential authority. It even threatens potential perjury charges against Biden if he disputes this assertion.
This rhetoric, while dramatic, faces pushback from legal scholars. The U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 2, grants the presidential pardon power as absolute. Historical court rulings, such as Ex parte Garland and United States v. Klein, underscore that pardons, once given, cannot be undone by subsequent presidents. A legal analysis emphasized that the presidential pardon power is not only final but also immune to revocation, noting that such attempts would yield chaos in the judicial and executive branches.
Notably, the controversy surrounding these executive actions extends beyond just pardons. Trump’s dismissal encapsulates a wide array of Biden’s executive acts purportedly executed by the autopen—a device that has been utilized across multiple presidencies, including Trump’s. Biden’s acknowledgment of using the autopen in signing clemency warrants adds weight to the conversation about authorization and legitimacy. He defended this practice, citing the sheer volume of documents that required signing, a point which underscores its efficiency.
The Department of Justice has historically maintained that autopen usage is valid as long as the president has provided prior authorization—an understanding first validated in 2005. This acceptance traces its validity through to the Obama administration, where the autopen was similarly utilized for signing legislation on the go.
Despite this, Republican-led investigations are in full swing to determine the extent of Biden’s personal involvement. The House Oversight Committee has issued subpoenas for key figures from Biden’s inner circle, including his former deputy chief of staff and current chief of staff. This inquiry reflects significant apprehension about potential breaches of legal protocols by Biden’s aides. The urgency expressed by the committee indicates an ongoing pursuit to resolve uncertainties surrounding Biden’s involvement in executive actions.
The investigations have gained traction following Biden’s perceived poor performance in a recent debate, sparking debates about his mental acuity. Trump has called for more formal inquiries, reflecting a concerted push from certain Republican circles to question Biden’s fitness for office altogether. As Senator Chuck Grassley articulated, the hearings have focused on competency issues but have struggled to produce tangible evidence of misconduct.
The political ramifications of Trump’s declaration are worth noting. By labeling autopen usage as indicative of Biden’s lack of engagement, Trump shapes a narrative that portrays Biden as an ineffective leader. He recently remarked, “All these people… telling this guy here, ‘Do this,’ ‘Do that,’ and not even tell him.” This framing goes beyond legal implications, playing out in the court of public opinion where perceptions can sway voter sentiment significantly.
Critics argue that Trump’s strategy relies heavily on the narrative of illegitimacy rather than solid constitutional legality. If a segment of the public believes Biden was not in charge, this perception may serve Trump’s political agenda, echoing historical instances where perceived improprieties have influenced electoral opinions more than factual legality.
Looking ahead, the outcome of the ongoing investigations will be pivotal. If evidence emerges indicating that key policy decisions were made without Biden’s direct knowledge, it could bolster claims about his unfitness for office. However, whether such findings would stand up in court remains uncertain.
Ultimately, Trump’s declaration exists more as charged political commentary than a legal maneuver. As legal experts have stated clearly, “no matter how much Trump or his allies might wish to erase Biden’s pardons, the Constitution does not give him the authority to do so.” Nonetheless, symbolic gestures in a heated election cycle can leave lasting impressions, hinting that narratives, not just legal interpretations, may shape the battlefield of American politics.
"*" indicates required fields
