By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump announced the termination of all orders signed by former President Joe Biden using an autopen on Friday. This declaration, made on Trump’s social media platform, claims any document not directly signed by Biden is now canceled, though the specific orders targeted remain unspecified. Trump alleges the autopen’s use was illegal, despite the Justice Department confirming its legality, and has previously fixated on the matter. Biden, in response to prior accusations, has affirmed he made all presidential decisions during his term.
Read the original article here
President Donald Trump says he’s terminating all orders Biden signed with autopen. This is quite a statement, isn’t it? It immediately sparks a lot of questions. First off, can he even do this? The consensus seems to be that a president can indeed terminate executive orders issued by previous administrations. That’s pretty standard operating procedure. However, the wrinkle here is the autopen. Trump’s contention, or so it appears, is that orders signed with an autopen are somehow invalid, and therefore ripe for termination.
Now, the use of an autopen by presidents is not exactly a new phenomenon. It’s been around for decades, used by presidents from Truman onward for various reasons, mainly to handle the sheer volume of paperwork that crosses the desk of the Oval Office. It’s a tool for efficiency. The legal validity of autopen signatures has generally been accepted. So, Trump’s move here seems less about legal precedent and more about something else.
Some see this as a distraction tactic, a way to flood the zone with another headline to take attention away from other issues. There’s mention of the Epstein files, the economy, and even the asylum of an Afghan national who killed a National Guard member. These are all weighty topics. The perception is that by making this claim about autopens, Trump is essentially trying to control the narrative, perhaps to divert attention from areas where he might be vulnerable.
The question of whether this is a legal maneuver or a political one becomes pretty relevant here. The suggestion that Trump might be trying to invalidate pardons granted by Biden, since he seemingly didn’t sign them personally, is an interesting one. It’s also been pointed out that Trump himself likely used an autopen during his presidency. To then suddenly declare that autopen signatures are invalid seems, well, inconsistent.
There’s also the question of precedent. If this tactic were to take hold, it could throw into question the validity of digital signatures used in everything from government contracts to everyday business transactions. The legal ramifications could be far-reaching, and the thought that all these signatures could be overturned because of a change of heart by a new administration is, to say the least, concerning.
There’s a lot of talk about how this all plays into the ongoing narrative of Trump’s apparent obsession with Biden. It’s a sentiment that pops up quite a bit. It’s almost as though Trump is fixated on anything Biden does, or has done. The emotional angle of this is hard to ignore, and the implications of this approach are clearly quite complicated.
Some see this as a political stunt, an attempt to make a statement and to stir the pot, rather than a genuine legal strategy. Others suggest that this is all part of a larger plan, a way to challenge some of Biden’s actions on another level, perhaps by invalidating pardons. The discussion focuses on whether this is an attempt to create a legal loophole or simply a way to make noise.
The fact that this claim is made by a man who’s been accused of not knowing whom he pardons is also noteworthy. The comments here highlight the lack of a clear reason to make this statement, other than perhaps to protect his allies. This claim is obviously aimed to protect someone from something he did by creating an argument that the autopen invalidates all the orders.
Overall, the reaction appears to be a mix of skepticism, criticism, and a degree of amusement. There is a general feeling that this move is more about political posturing and damage control than any serious legal challenge. The sentiment is that this will be erased by the next president, whenever that may be.