In the closing hours of his presidency on January 20, 2025, President Joe Biden exercised his constitutional authority to grant a series of pardons and commutations. Among the recipients were notable figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and several members of the House Select Committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Additionally, Biden extended clemency to family members, including his brothers James and Frank Biden, his sister Valerie Biden Owens, and their respective spouses.
Biden justified these pardons by highlighting the relentless scrutiny and threats these individuals faced, stating that he had “no reason to believe these attacks will end.” He also commuted the sentence of Leonard Peltier, an 80-year-old Indigenous activist convicted in the 1970s for the deaths of two FBI agents, allowing him to serve the remainder of his sentence under home confinement.
In response, President Donald Trump declared these pardons “void, vacant, and of no further force or effect,” alleging that they were executed without Biden’s knowledge and were signed using an autopen—a device that replicates signatures mechanically. Trump’s assertion implies that the use of an autopen, especially without the President’s direct awareness, invalidates the pardons.
The autopen has a long history in U.S. governance, with presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama, and even Trump himself utilizing it for various official documents. Notably, in 2011, President Obama authorized the use of an autopen to sign a bill into law while he was abroad. The Department of Justice has previously opined that documents signed with an autopen, under presidential direction, hold the same legal weight as those personally signed.
Legal experts widely agree that the U.S. Constitution grants the President broad clemency powers, without specifying the method of signature. Bernadette Meyler, a constitutional law professor at Stanford Law School, noted that the Constitution doesn’t require a pardon to be written, suggesting that the method of signing—whether by hand or autopen—is irrelevant to its validity.
Furthermore, there is no constitutional mechanism allowing a sitting president to revoke a predecessor’s pardons. Once granted, pardons are typically irrevocable. Jeffrey Crouch, a professor at American University, emphasized that as long as pardons are validly issued, they are final.
Trump’s challenge to Biden’s pardons appears unprecedented. Historically, the autopen’s use has not been a point of contention regarding the legitimacy of presidential actions. The core of Trump’s argument rests on the assumption that Biden was unaware of the pardons due to cognitive decline, leading to unauthorized use of the autopen by staff. However, no concrete evidence has been presented to support this claim.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, when questioned about evidence supporting Trump’s assertions, deflected by suggesting that reporters should investigate the matter themselves. This response has left many seeking clarity on the administration’s stance.
The individuals pardoned by Biden have expressed varied reactions. Members of the January 6 Committee, such as Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, dismissed Trump’s claims, asserting that their actions were lawful and that the pardons were precautionary measures against potential political retribution.
Dr. Anthony Fauci and General Mark Milley have refrained from public comment on their pardons. However, sources close to them indicate relief, viewing the pardons as protective measures against politically motivated investigations.
The debate over the validity of Biden’s pardons underscores the polarized nature of current U.S. politics. While the legal consensus supports the legitimacy of autopen-signed pardons, the political ramifications continue to unfold. Trump’s assertions, lacking precedent and substantial evidence, are unlikely to hold legal weight. However, they contribute to ongoing discussions about presidential powers, the use of technology in governance, and the boundaries of executive authority.
As this situation evolves, it serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and adherence to constitutional principles in maintaining public trust in governmental institutions.
