Trump Challenges Validity of Biden’s Autopen-Signed Pardons
In a recent development, President Donald Trump has declared that pardons issued by former President Joe Biden are “void, vacant, and of no further force or effect,” alleging they were signed using an autopen—a device that replicates a person’s signature mechanically—without Biden’s direct knowledge or approval.
Trump’s assertions specifically target preemptive pardons granted by Biden on his last day in office. These pardons encompassed a range of individuals, including members of the House January 6 Select Committee, such as former Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both of whom were critical of Trump’s actions related to the Capitol riot. Additionally, figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Chief Medical Advisor, and General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were also pardoned. Biden emphasized that these pardons should not be construed as an acknowledgment of any wrongdoing by the recipients.
The crux of Trump’s argument lies in the use of the autopen for signing these pardons. He contends that such a method renders the pardons invalid, especially if Biden was unaware of their issuance. On his social media platform, Trump stated: “The ‘Pardons’ that Sleepy Joe Biden gave… are hereby declared VOID… because… they were done by Autopen.”He further alleged that Biden “did not know anything about them.”
Historically, the autopen has been employed by U.S. presidents to sign various documents. Its use dates back to at least the Truman administration, with subsequent presidents utilizing it for efficiency. Notably, in 2011, President Barack Obama used an autopen to sign an extension of the Patriot Act while abroad. The Department of Justice has previously opined that autopen signatures are legally valid for enacting legislation.
Legal experts are divided on the implications of autopen use for presidential pardons. Some argue that the method of signing does not inherently invalidate a pardon, provided it reflects the president’s intent. Kimberly Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, remarked, “There’s no magic in the mechanism of a pardon.” She emphasized that the president’s intent is paramount, regardless of the signing method.
Furthermore, the notion that a sitting president can nullify pardons issued by a predecessor is unprecedented and legally untested. The U.S. Constitution grants the president the power to issue pardons, but it does not provide a mechanism for a subsequent president to revoke them. Jeffrey Crouch, an expert on presidential pardons at American University, noted that while autopen use is not new, challenging the validity of such pardons is.
Members of the January 6 Committee have responded to Trump’s claims with defiance. Bennie Thompson, the committee’s former chairman, dismissed the allegations, stating he is “not afraid of Trump’s latest midnight rant.”Similarly, Adam Kinzinger challenged Trump to proceed with any investigations, expressing impatience over the threats.
The broader political context reveals a deepening rift between the current administration and its predecessors. Trump’s assertions come on the heels of a report by the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, which claimed that many of Biden’s official documents bore autopen signatures. This report has fueled debates about the authenticity and legality of such documents.
In response to these allegations, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has called for a Department of Justice investigation into the use of the autopen during Biden’s tenure. Bailey expressed concerns that unelected staff might have pushed through policies without Biden’s direct approval, stating that if true, such actions would render the documents “unconstitutional and legally void.”