President Trump has officially declared Biden’s autopen-signed pardons “void, vacant and of no further force or effect,” putting Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci, and others on notice that their legal protections may be worthless.
Quick Takes
- Trump asserts that pardons for Jan. 6 committee members, Fauci, and Milley are invalid because they were signed with an autopen rather than by Biden personally
- The pardons were issued on Biden’s last day in office as preemptive protection against potential investigations by the Trump administration
- Trump claims Biden “knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime”
- The Constitution grants presidents broad pardon power with no provision for subsequent presidents to rescind them
- Courts will likely have the final say on the validity of the pardons, setting up a potential constitutional showdown
Trump Declares Biden’s Pardons Null and Void
President Trump has taken a bold stand against what he views as illegitimate pardons issued in the final hours of the Biden administration. In a decisive statement, Trump declared that numerous pardons, including those for the January 6th committee members, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and General Mark Milley, are “void, vacant and of no further force or effect.” The crux of Trump’s argument centers on the method of signing—the pardons were reportedly executed using an autopen, a mechanical device that reproduces signatures, rather than being personally signed by Biden himself.
“The ‘Pardons’ that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen,” Trump stated. He further alleged that Biden “knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime,” suggesting that the pardons may have been processed without the former president’s full knowledge or consent — a serious allegation that calls into question the entire legitimacy of the pardoning process.
🚨🇺🇸REP CHIP ROY WANTS CHENEY, FAUCI AND MILLEY TO TESTIFY DESPITE BIDEN PARDONS
Rep. Chip Roy is pushing to bring Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci, and Mark Milley before Congress to "test the constitutional reach" of Biden’s pardons.
The move challenges whether Biden’s sweeping… https://t.co/BSFAx83qqs pic.twitter.com/UJRtH4xV6W
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 20, 2025
The Constitutional Question of Autopen Pardons
The controversy surrounding these pardons raises significant constitutional questions about the requirements for a valid presidential pardon. While the Constitution grants the president broad power to issue pardons, it does not specifically address the method of signature required. The conservative Heritage Foundation has raised similar concerns about Biden’s use of an autopen, noting identical signatures on several documents. This pattern has fueled speculation about whether Biden was fully engaged in the pardoning process or if staff members were acting with excessive autonomy.
“Speaking to reporters onboard Air Force One, Trump said ‘it’s not my decision’ whether Biden’s pardons can be voided, and that it would ultimately be up to the courts.”
Legal experts note that federal courts have previously ruled that presidential pardons don’t necessarily need to be in writing, further complicating the matter. The lack of clear precedent on autopen-signed pardons creates a gray area that could lead to protracted legal battles. Critics argue that allowing a president to void pardons granted by his predecessor could establish a dangerous precedent, undermining the separation of powers and the finality of presidential clemency decisions.
Preemptive Pardons as Political Protection
Biden’s flurry of pardons on his last day in office was widely seen as an effort to shield certain individuals from potential prosecution under the Trump administration. The pardons specifically targeted members of the January 6th House select committee, which Trump has accused of destroying evidence and committing “major crimes.” Also included in the pardons were Dr. Anthony Fauci, who faced criticism for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and General Mark Milley, who reportedly made unauthorized calls to China during Trump’s previous administration.
“President Joe Biden said in a January 20 statement: ‘The Select Committee fulfilled this mission with integrity and a commitment to discovering the truth. Rather than accept accountability, those who perpetrated the January 6th attack have taken every opportunity to undermine and intimidate those who participated in the Select Committee in an attempt to rewrite history, erase the stain of January 6th for partisan gain, and seek revenge, including by threatening criminal prosecutions.'”
The timing of these pardons — issued in the final hours of Biden’s term — suggests a calculated political move to hamstring Trump’s ability to pursue investigations against political adversaries. The preemptive nature of these pardons is itself controversial, as they were granted without any charges or convictions having been filed against the recipients. This has raised questions about whether such blanket, preemptive pardons exceed presidential authority, especially when their constitutional validity is further complicated by the autopen issue and a question of mental capacity.
Potential Legal and Political Fallout
President Trump’s declaration has set the stage for what could become a landmark constitutional showdown. If his Justice Department moves forward with investigations or prosecutions of individuals who received these pardons, the courts will be forced to rule on the validity of autopen-signed presidential clemency. The uncertainty surrounding the legality of Trump’s declaration leaves Cheney, Fauci, Milley, and others in a precarious legal position, unsure if their pardons will shield them from potential charges.
While Biden set a record with nearly 2,500 commutations during his term, these particular pardons have become the focal point of controversy due to their political nature and questioned authenticity. The constitutional powers of the presidency are now center stage, with fundamental questions about the limits of pardon power and the authority of a president to invalidate the actions of his predecessor. As this situation develops, the resolution may establish precedents that affect the balance of power between administrations for generations to come.
The ultimate decision will likely fall to the courts, potentially reaching the Supreme Court, which will need to weigh constitutional intent against practical considerations in an increasingly polarized political environment. Until then, those who received Biden’s autopen pardons remain in legal limbo, uncertain whether their protection will stand or crumble under judicial scrutiny.
