Trump’s Move to Nullify Biden Autopen-Signed Orders: A Controversial Declaration
Donald Trump’s recent declaration, shared on Truth Social, that he is nullifying all executive orders, pardons, and other documents allegedly signed by President Joe Biden via an autopen ignites a politically charged atmosphere. The autopen, a machine designed to replicate a president’s signature, has become the focal point of a legal and political storm.
“I am hereby cancelling all Executive Orders, and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden,” Trump stated emphatically. He further alleged that “the people who operated the Autopen did so illegally,” threatening potential charges of perjury against Biden if he claims otherwise. This bold move aligns with Trump’s narrative of fighting against what he claims is government fraud.
Background of the Announcement
Trump’s assertion is not a random outburst. It follows months of scrutiny from Republican figures regarding Biden’s use of the autopen during the final days of his presidency. According to the Oversight Project, part of the Heritage Foundation, a staggering 92% of Biden’s executive actions in early 2024 were signed using this device. Critics argue this method casts doubt on Biden’s ability to govern and raises questions about his mental fitness.
Trump firmly stated, “The Autopen is not allowed to be used if approval is not specifically given by the President of the United States.” He posits that aides within the White House have engaged in a cover-up, declaring that “radical leftists surrounding Biden… took away his presidency.”
Scope of Trump’s Allegations
The former president’s declaration spans a range of actions, notably the pardons issued on January 19, 2024, the last full day of Biden’s term. Among the pardoned individuals were members of the congressional committee that investigated the January 6 Capitol breach, along with notable figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci and General Mark Milley. Trump has labeled these pardons as substantial examples of “autopen fraud.”
Trump stated, “The ‘Pardons’ that Sleepy Joe Biden gave… are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT.” This language is indicative of Trump’s approach—both combative and dramatic.
The Oversight Committee has conducted inquiries and released a 93-page report based on interviews with 14 former aides. While the report did not produce definitive evidence connecting autopen usage to unauthorized decisions, it highlighted issues of documentation and authorization that remain unresolved.
Legal Implications Are Complicated
Despite the fervent controversy, legal experts emphasize that Trump lacks the authority to nullify actions taken by a previous president, especially through a social media statement. Once issued, presidential pardons hold a unique irrevocable status.
“There is no specification that this pardon be in writing,” noted constitutional law professor Bernadette Meyler. She added that the president can delegate power to affix signatures, upholding the legitimacy of autopen usage as long as it’s authorized. Constitutional scholar Brian Kalt reinforced this point, stating that doubts over signatures do not grant anyone the power to nullify presidential actions.
Evidence of Misconduct Remains Elusive
The investigation has yet to unearth direct evidence suggesting Biden did not approve the actions in question. Several former aides have publicly denied any unauthorized use of the autopen. Neera Tanden, a former White House staff secretary, asserted, “I always required a signature card, which documented his approval before we moved forward.”
However, there are indications of internal confusion. A DOJ ethics attorney recognized potential irregularities in how clemency was applied to certain offenders, prompting questions about whether Biden was fully briefed on the vetting process. Reports referred to a “game of telephone” in communication about approvals.
Additionally, a fact-checking effort by BBC Verify found original hand-signed pardons filed in the Federal Register, disputing claims that 92% of documents signed by the autopen were inauthentic.
Political Reactions are Divided
Trump’s initiative has galvanized support from his base, who view it as a necessary assertion of constitutional authority. Congressman Comer expressed support, stating, “I applaud President Trump for deeming President Biden’s autopen actions NULL AND VOID.” The Oversight Project echoed this sentiment, claiming, “WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY.”
Conversely, Democrats have dismissed the nullification attempt as mere theatrics. Rep. Robert Garcia critiqued broader investigations as “a sham designed to distract from legislative failures and Trump’s ongoing legal troubles.”
A Brief History of Autopen Use
Historically, the autopen has seen limited use across several administrations. President George W. Bush utilized it beginning in 2005, and President Obama faced scrutiny when he authorized its use to sign a bill while abroad in 2011, a move ultimately supported by the Justice Department.
As the volume of documents rises during transitions or late-term actions, autopen usage tends to increase. The National Archives maintains that all signatures undergo a detailed review process, and no president’s authority over autopen utilization has been legally challenged if clear intent to sign is demonstrated.
No court case has ever invalidated an executive action based solely on the method used for the president’s signature. Legal experts caution that undermining legitimate actions due to autopen use—even without evidence—would set a troubling legal precedent.
Future Implications
While Trump’s declaration may resonate within certain political circles, attempts to overturn Biden-era policies based on autopen controversy will almost certainly encounter strong legal opposition. Biden’s team asserts that all autopen actions complied with established procedures and carried his explicit approval.
However, Republican investigations remain active. The Oversight Committee has urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to explore possible criminal implications regarding Biden aides’ handling of the autopen, focusing on whether any actions were taken without full presidential awareness or consent.
Trump asserted, “If he [Biden] says he was [involved in the autopen], he will be held to account for sworn testimony.”
Despite the fervor, legal clarity appears to lie with Biden. Any effort at nullification from a former president holds no legal stature. Without concrete proof of misconduct, it is likely courts will remain uninvolved, leaving Trump’s declaration as a vivid political statement—one that may stoke controversy but ultimately changes little in terms of fact.
"*" indicates required fields
