By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former President Donald Trump declared his intention to terminate all executive orders allegedly signed by Joe Biden using an autopen, claiming approximately 92% of Biden’s actions were executed in this manner. Legal experts dispute the validity of this claim, asserting that the method of signing has no bearing on the legitimacy of executive orders. Trump’s declaration comes after he previously ordered an investigation into Biden’s autopen use, which has been criticized by some as a major political scandal. While the exact implications of Trump’s announcement remain uncertain, it highlights a debate over the use of automated signature devices and their role in presidential actions.
Read the original article here
Legal analysts, it seems, are having a field day reacting to Donald Trump’s stated intention to terminate President Biden’s executive orders. The general consensus appears to be a mix of “it’s possible, but why?” and “what’s the real game here?” The core issue is that any president can, in fact, revoke the executive orders of their predecessor. The legal power is there. The “how” and “why,” however, are where things get interesting.
The immediate reaction leans towards skepticism. Many see this as a performative act, a symbolic gesture rather than a well-thought-out policy move. The suggestion that the autopen – a machine that automatically signs documents – is somehow the problem raises eyebrows. Legal analysts point out that the method of signing an executive order doesn’t dictate its validity. The president has the power to undo a previous order regardless of how it was signed. So, the autopen excuse feels flimsy at best, and disingenuous at worst.
This leads to the suspicion of a larger strategy. Some analysts suggest that Trump might be attempting to establish a precedent, perhaps aiming to challenge other legal matters later on by claiming they were signed with the autopen and therefore somehow illegitimate. Others see it simply as a move driven by a desire to dismantle everything Biden accomplished, a kind of “undoing someone else’s homework” approach. The underlying sentiment is that it’s more about ego and political posturing than actual governance.
The scope of Biden’s executive orders and the potential consequences of reversing them are also considered. These orders cover a broad range of topics. The legal implications of such a mass revocation could be substantial, creating instability and uncertainty. Experts highlight that while Trump can technically do this, it doesn’t mean it’s without consequences. There’s a concern about eroding the stability and predictability of the legal landscape. The legal experts seem to agree that it’s primarily an exercise in political theater, not necessarily based on a strong legal foundation or a desire for practical outcomes.
A common theme emerges regarding the nature of executive orders themselves. Some analysts use this as a chance to highlight what they see as a broader problem: the increasing reliance on executive orders as a tool of governance. Because these orders don’t go through the same legislative process as bills passed by Congress, they can be seen as less legitimate by some and allow presidents to wield more power than traditionally expected. This leads to less oversight and accountability. By going around Congress, the executive branch may take on king-like powers, especially when using executive orders to conduct military actions.
The specific actions Trump proposes are scrutinized. For example, his intention to reverse Biden’s immigration policies is assessed. It’s noted that such a move will involve legal challenges and potentially significant disruptions. Furthermore, the focus on undoing Biden’s actions is contrasted with a lack of concrete policy plans. The implication is that the primary goal is not to improve the country but to erase the previous administration’s work. It’s a reaction to the idea that Trump doesn’t like a single thing Biden or Obama have done.
A lot of the reaction seems to boil down to one simple question: What is the true motive? Is it genuine policy change? Or is it something else entirely? Many analysts suspect that Trump’s primary goal is to erase Biden’s legacy and score political points. The legal mechanisms are there, but the rationale is questioned. There’s also the suggestion that the aim is to distract the public. There is the suggestion of potential corruption and other underlying problems.
Ultimately, the consensus among legal analysts seems to be that Trump can do what he says, but there’s a serious lack of substance behind the rhetoric. Some look ahead, considering the next president who will, in turn, reverse Trump’s actions. The cycle continues, highlighting the inherent instability of governing through executive orders and the potential for a constant back-and-forth based on political ideologies.