The notion that former President Donald Trump can revoke the executive orders or pardons issued by President Joe Biden has been firmly dismissed by legal experts. Trump has claimed that Biden’s use of an autopen to sign these orders renders them null and void, but according to Eric A. Baldwin, a postdoctoral research fellow at Stanford Law School, this assertion lacks legal merit.
Baldwin explained that a sitting president does not possess the authority to invalidate the actions of their predecessor. He emphasized, “There is no legal basis for the idea that a president can invalidate a predecessor’s actions simply because they were signed with an autopen.” Furthermore, the constitutional framework does not grant a new president the power to retroactively void pardons or executive orders once they have been issued. In Baldwin’s view, “Pardons are constitutionally final once granted.”
According to Baldwin, the legal principles established in the case of United States v. Klein illustrate that the legality of a law signed by a former president cannot be overturned merely due to the method of signing. He noted that the autopen employed by Biden is not unique; it has been used by previous presidents, including George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and even Trump himself.
The expert referenced a 2005 opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which concluded that the president may lawfully direct an autopen to sign legislation and that such signatures carry full legal effect. Baldwin stated, “No court has rejected this view,” reinforcing the legitimacy of Biden’s executive actions.
The legal expert further clarified that once a pardon is issued, its consequences are final and cannot be reversed. He outlined the procedural requirements for a president wishing to rescind an executive order. “To replace or rescind an executive order, the president must issue a new written order,” Baldwin explained. Additionally, any changes to regulations require adherence to the procedures laid out in the Administrative Procedure Act, which includes public notice and a reasoned explanation for any alterations.
Despite this expert analysis, Trump remains adamant about his stance. In a recent post on Truth Social, he reiterated his intention to rescind orders signed by Biden that he claims were executed with an “unauthorized” autopen. He stated, “Any and all Documents, Proclamations, Executive Orders, Memorandums, or Contracts, signed by Order of the now infamous and unauthorized ‘AUTOPEN,’ within the Administration of Joseph R. Biden Jr., are hereby null, void, and of no further force or effect.”
As the debate continues over the validity of Biden’s actions, Baldwin’s insights highlight the complexities of executive power and the legal limitations on how one president can influence the decisions of another.
