Trump Moves to Nullify Biden’s Final Acts

President Trump has declared Biden’s pardons for January 6 Committee members void, claiming they were signed by autopen without Biden’s knowledge—potentially setting the stage for an unprecedented legal challenge to presidential clemency powers.

Top Takeaways

Trump claims Biden’s pardons for Jan. 6 Committee members are invalid because they were allegedly signed using an autopen without Biden’s knowledge.
Legal experts doubt Trump’s ability to void his predecessor’s pardons, citing the Constitution’s broad pardon authority.
The dispute centers on pardons issued to Committee members, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Trump’s challenge to Biden’s pardons tests the limits of executive power and could lead to significant legal confrontation.

Trump Declares Biden Pardons “Void”

President Donald Trump has launched a direct challenge to the validity of pardons issued by former President Joe Biden, declaring them “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT.” The contested pardons were granted to members of the House January 6 Committee and other officials including former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley and Dr. Anthony Fauci. Trump’s primary argument centers on the allegation that these pardons were signed using an autopen device rather than personally by Biden, and further claims that Biden had no knowledge of the pardons’ content or issuance.

Legal Experts Question Trump’s Authority

Constitutional scholars and legal experts have expressed significant skepticism about Trump’s ability to nullify pardons issued by a predecessor. The US Constitution grants the president broad and unqualified pardon power, with no provision for subsequent presidents to revoke pardons based on the method of signature. When asked if he believes the pardons are indeed void, Trump responded, “I think so. It’s not my decision. That would be up to a court,” suggesting he recognizes the need for judicial determination on the matter.

Jeffrey Crouch, a pardon expert, and Kimberly Wehle, a constitutional law professor, both indicate that Trump would likely lose any legal challenge to the pardons. A 2005 Justice Department opinion already established the legality of using autopen signatures for presidential documents. The Supreme Court has historically shown deference to presidential pardon powers, making it unlikely they would support voiding pardons based on the signing method rather than substance.

Political Dimensions of the Dispute

The pardons at the center of this controversy include those granted to Committee members Rep. Bennie Thompson, Sen. Adam Schiff, former Reps. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and current Reps. Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren, and Jamie Raskin, among others. Trump has characterized these individuals as “Political Thugs” guilty of “major crimes,” though he has not specified what laws they allegedly violated. The president appears to be targeting those who investigated his actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Broader Pardon Context

Biden’s pardon record includes commutations for nearly 2,500 sentences, with over 2,000 for nonviolent drug offenses—setting a record for presidential clemency. By comparison, Trump previously pardoned approximately 1,500 individuals related to the January 6 Capitol attack and commuted sentences for 14 supporters, including members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has claimed that an autopen was heavily used throughout Biden’s presidency, potentially motivating Trump to challenge the validity of these signatures.

The constitutional confrontation developing between the current and former president represents an unprecedented challenge to the established understanding of executive pardon powers. Legal scholars suggest that if Trump pursues formal legal action, it would likely culminate in a Supreme Court case that could redefine the scope and limitations of presidential clemency authority. For now, those who received Biden’s pardons remain in legal limbo as they await clarity on whether their protection from prosecution will remain intact.