On Friday, former President Donald Trump intensified his ongoing campaign to challenge the legitimacy of actions taken during Joe Biden's presidency. In a contentious post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump proclaimed that he is “cancelling all executive orders, and anything else that was not directly signed” by his predecessor. This declaration raises significant questions about his legal authority to rescind the actions of a former president based on the reasoning he provided.
In his post, Trump boldly asserted that “any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect.” However, Trump did not clarify what specific documents fall under this alleged 92% threshold. He further stated, “The Autopen is not allowed to be used if approval is not specifically given by the President of the United States.” This claim has sparked debate regarding the legality and implications of using the autopen for presidential signatures.
Trump continued to assert that Biden “was not involved in the Autopen process” and ominously warned that “if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury.” This rhetoric reflects Trump's longstanding fixation on the use of the autopen, suggesting that it undermines Biden's authority and legitimacy as president. He stated, “The Radical Left Lunatics circling Biden around the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office took the Presidency away from him. I am hereby cancelling all Executive Orders, and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden, because the people who operated the Autopen did so illegally.”
In response to Trump's assertions, President Biden has publicly refuted the idea of any “cover-up” by his administration. He insists that he made all decisions as president and has labeled Republicans who allege otherwise as “liars.” This ongoing dispute highlights the contentious nature of political discourse in the current landscape, particularly regarding presidential powers and the validity of executive orders.
Trump's claims regarding the autopen have drawn scrutiny from legal experts. In March, he suggested that Biden’s use of the autopen indicated he wasn’t truly in charge during his time in office and that such actions were “null and void.” Conservative executive authority scholar John Yoo commented on CNN that Trump was “just having fun at Biden’s expense.” Additionally, Trump initiated an investigation into Biden’s use of the autopen, linking it to claims about the former president’s cognitive decline.
Legal opinions on the use of the autopen date back decades. In 2005, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, under Republican President George W. Bush, conducted a thorough review of the legality surrounding a president's use of the autopen. The review concluded that “the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill to sign it within the meaning of Article I, Section 7.” This established legal precedent challenges Trump’s narrative that Biden's actions via the autopen are invalid.
Trump has particularly focused on Biden's pardons as a point of contention regarding the autopen. However, established legal advice from previous administrations undermines his claims. A memo from the US solicitor general dating back to 1929 emphasized that the Constitution does not prescribe a specific method for issuing pardons, further complicating Trump's assertions.
As this contentious debate unfolds, the implications for executive authority and the legitimacy of presidential actions remain at the forefront of political discourse. The ongoing dialogue surrounding the autopen and executive orders will likely shape the political landscape as both parties navigate the complexities of presidential powers.