In a stunning admission, Joe Biden revealed he did **not personally approve every final pardon and commutation** during the closing days of his presidency—triggering Trump to declare them all invalid over one claimed “mistake.”
The controversy began when an interview surfaced in which Biden confirmed he used an autopen—a signature-replicating machine—to finalize dozens of clemency orders, including those for his **family members, Gen. Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci**, and investigators of the January 6 Committee. He insisted he had **vetted the categories and standards**, but acknowledged aides handled the details. ABC News reported that he personally “made every decision” but didn’t sign every name individually.
The revelation answered more than one question: Why were so many thousands of pardons suddenly issued in bulk, and why did Biden’s own **chief of staff reportedly give the final thumbs-up**? As uncovered by investigators and originally detailed in Times of India, **Jeff Zients approved the autopen signing rounds without Biden reviewing each case**.
A tweet from @PardonWatch summarized the drama:
“Biden admits he okayed the pardon rules—but staff did the signatures. Trump says that makes all the clemency null.”
Trump was unrelenting. In a Truth Social post, he declared that **every pardon Biden issued is now “void, vacant, and of no further force or effect”**—arguing the use of the autopen was Biden’s fatal error. Legal experts quickly challenged that claim. According to constitutional scholars cited by Time magazine, presidents are free to authorize autopen signatures and **there is no constitutional mechanism for a successor to undo valid pardons**.
Another influential tweet offered perspective:
“Trump claims a machine stamp voids a president’s power. Experts say that’s nonsense.”
Meanwhile, Biden slammed Trump’s accusations in a fiery exchange with *The New York Times*, calling the claims “utter BS” and labeling detractors **as political liars**. He insisted the autopen usage followed legal precedent, including precedents from previous administrations—echoed by reporting from The Guardian.
Despite the political theater, legal authorities say that **once a pardon is accepted**, it cannot be revoked—even by a future president. As explained in a segment on *CBS News*, the Constitution’s Article II grants pardons without requiring a handwritten signature, and **U.S. courts consistently uphold validly issued clemency**. CBS legal experts weigh in.
The House Oversight Committee, led by Republicans, has launched an investigation into whether Biden’s staff improperly exploited his authority—especially given Biden’s recent disclosure that he’s battling advanced prostate cancer. **Rep. James Comer argued** Biden may have lacked executive control during those final weeks. Reporting from The Sun emphasized Comer’s demand for full transparency.
Political commentary outlet *The Washington Post* observed that Republicans seem less concerned with the legality and more focused on undermining Biden’s legacy, framing the autopen issue as proof of mental decline rather than a constitutional anomaly. Editorial coverage explained how autopen use is longstanding and legal.
Another tweet from @LegalReality underscored the legal consensus:
“Trump’s strategy: turn procedural normalcy into scandal. Most lawyers say pardons stand.”
The litigation perspective matters. Cases like *Ex parte Garland* (1866) have long upheld the president’s absolute pardon power. **The Supreme Court has ruled that pardons accepted by recipients cannot be undone**. That precedent makes it clear that **Trump lacks authority to nullify valid clemency**, autopen or not. Legal histories confirm the enduring nature of presidential pardon authority.
Meanwhile, cultural skeptics point out that the optics of mass last-minute pardons—including for his son Hunter—*reinforce concerns about cronyism and executive overreach*. The New York Times analysis noted implications for public trust and partisan inflaming.
The autopen controversy overshadowed the federally recognized clemency protections for **hundreds of nonviolent offenders**, former law-enforcement officers, and political aides. Some **legal scholars emphasized** that even blanket pardons remain binding. Vox explained
Thousands of Reddit users on r/politics and other forums dissected the sequence: “Trump says void. Lawyers say invalid.” Meme threads paired Trump’s declarations with mock autopen machines and headlines that read “Pardon Rescinded? Nope.”
On TikTok and X, users mashed up snippets of Trump’s Truth Social with Biden’s candid interview moments—captioned “Autopen drama or constitutional chaos?” Some trendsetters framed it as a political cultural moment: ritual at the end of the administration revealing institutional pressure over presidential oversight.
For Trump, the move serves dual purpose: rally the base and delegitimize Biden’s final acts. But constitutional scholars and longtime press insiders stress it doesn’t alter the law. As constitutional professor Bernadette Meyler and legal analyst Jeffrey Crouch explained in commentary, **Trump’s attempt to void pardons has no judicial backing**. Time’s legal experts agreed.
The fallout is far from over. With the Justice Department and Congressional panels probing, Biden’s legacy—and cognitive stewardship—is now subject to intense scrutiny. But the core of the matter remains clear: **words may tarnish reputation—but law safeguards presidential forgiveness, autopen included**.
