President Trump declares Biden’s pardons “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT” in a stunning move that challenges the constitutional boundaries of presidential succession and executive power.
At a Glance
- President Trump has declared Biden’s pardons for January 6 committee members, Dr. Fauci, Liz Cheney, and Mark Milley void due to their alleged signing by autopen.
- Trump claims Biden “knew nothing about them” and that those who processed the pardons “may have committed a crime.”
- The Heritage Foundation and The Oversight Project have supported Trump’s assertions, citing identical signatures across multiple documents.
- Legal experts note that presidential pardon power is traditionally absolute, with courts historically reluctant to impose limits.
- Trump suggested courts will ultimately decide the validity of these pardons, potentially opening the door for prosecutions.
Trump Challenges Constitutional Precedent With Declaration
President Trump has taken the extraordinary step of declaring the pardons issued by Biden during his final days in office to be “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT.” The unprecedented declaration centers on Trump’s claim that Biden used an autopen to sign pardons for January 6 committee members, former congresswoman Liz Cheney, retired General Mark Milley, and infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci. This move directly challenges the traditional understanding of presidential pardon powers, which most constitutional scholars consider among the most absolute authorities granted to a president.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump elaborated on his position, stating that the decision to void these pardons wasn’t solely his to make. “It’s not my decision,” Trump explained, indicating that the courts would ultimately determine whether Biden’s pardons can be invalidated. This careful framing suggests Trump is positioning for a legal battle while simultaneously signaling to his base that he’s taking action against those he’s previously characterized as political enemies.
🚨🇺🇸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
Questions of Legitimacy and Presidential Authority
At the heart of this constitutional confrontation is Trump’s assertion that Biden not only used an autopen for these pardons but was potentially unaware they were even being issued. “He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime,” Trump stated. This claim dovetails with persistent concerns raised throughout Biden’s presidency about his cognitive capabilities and who was actually making decisions within his administration.
“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 proclaimed in a statement that has sent shockwaves through legal and political circles.
While autopens have been used by various officials for routine documents, their use for consequential actions like presidential pardons raises significant constitutional questions. The Heritage Foundation and The Oversight Project have both supported Trump’s claims, pointing to evidence of identical signatures across multiple documents as proof of autopen usage. However, the U.S. Constitution grants presidents broad pardon powers with no explicit provision allowing subsequent presidents to rescind them based on the signing method.
Political Motivations and Potential Consequences
Biden’s pardons, issued on his last day in office, appeared clearly designed to protect individuals Trump had previously threatened to investigate. The preemptive nature of these pardons — issued before any charges were filed — adds another layer of controversy to their legitimacy. Trump has consistently described the January 6 committee members as “political thugs” and has argued they are “guilty of unspecified major crimes,” particularly focusing on what he claims was deliberate destruction of evidence.
The implications of Trump’s declaration extend far beyond the individuals named in Biden’s pardons. If successful in voiding these pardons, this action would establish a precedent whereby one president could effectively nullify the pardons of a predecessor, fundamentally altering the understanding of presidential powers that has existed throughout American history. Critics argue this could lead to a dangerous cycle of retribution each time the White House changes hands.
Legal Experts Weigh In On Uncertain Territory
Constitutional scholars remain divided on the validity of Trump’s declaration. While the president’s pardon power is broadly defined in the Constitution, the method of signing pardons has never been seriously challenged in court. A federal appeals court has previously ruled that presidential pardons don’t even need to be in writing to be valid, which raises questions about whether the autopen argument would hold up under judicial scrutiny.
What remains clear is that this bold move by Trump represents yet another example of his willingness to challenge conventional understanding of presidential authority and constitutional boundaries. With the Justice Department now under his direction, the possibility that some of Biden’s pardoned individuals could face prosecution despite their pardons creates unprecedented constitutional questions that will likely require Supreme Court intervention to resolve. For conservatives frustrated with what they view as years of partisan weaponization of government against them, Trump’s declaration represents a long-awaited pushback against the Washington establishment.
