Trump contends that Biden's pardons have no force because they were signed with an autopen

Yahoo! News - Mar 17th, 2025

Former President Donald Trump has challenged the validity of recent pardons issued by President Joe Biden, claiming they are void because they were signed using an autopen rather than by Biden's own hand. Trump made these assertions without evidence, raising questions about Biden's awareness of these pardons. The White House, through press secretary Karoline Leavitt, pointed to speculative media reports suggesting potential misuse of the autopen. Despite these claims, there is no legal requirement for pardons to be signed personally by the president, and autopens have been historically used for significant presidential actions.

The controversy arises in the context of ongoing tensions related to the January 6 Capitol riot investigations, with Trump expressing dissatisfaction about past prosecutions. The debate underscores broader questions about presidential authority and the use of autopens, which have been employed by past presidents for various official duties. Legal experts highlight that the Constitution does not mandate specific signing methods for pardons, and Biden's pardons were accompanied by formal statements indicating their official nature.

Donald Trump Joe Biden January 6 Capitol Riot Presidential Pardons Autopen Legal Authority

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The story presents a timely and controversial topic that is of significant public interest, addressing the use of autopens in presidential pardons and the political dynamics surrounding the January 6th investigation. While the article is clear and accessible, its accuracy and balance are undermined by a lack of authoritative sources and insufficient exploration of the legal and historical context. The reliance on Trump's claims without substantial evidence or expert input diminishes the credibility and impact of the reporting. Despite these weaknesses, the article has the potential to provoke debate and engage readers interested in political and legal issues. However, to fully realize its potential, the story would benefit from a more balanced presentation and deeper analysis of the complex issues at play.

Accuracy

The story presents several claims, particularly those made by former President Trump, regarding the validity of pardons signed by an autopen. Trump's assertion that these pardons are void lacks supporting evidence and contradicts established legal opinions, such as the 2005 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel's opinion allowing autopen use for signing legislation. The article does mention the lack of evidence provided by Trump or the White House, which aligns with the need for verification. However, the story does not sufficiently challenge Trump's claims with authoritative sources or legal experts, which weakens its factual accuracy.

Balance

The story attempts to present both Trump's viewpoint and the legal context surrounding the use of autopens. However, it leans towards amplifying Trump's narrative without adequately counterbalancing it with expert legal opinions or historical context. The article briefly mentions the constitutional authority of presidents to issue pardons and the precedent for using autopens, but it does not delve deeply into these aspects, resulting in a somewhat imbalanced presentation of perspectives.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it accessible to readers. However, the presentation of information could be more organized, particularly in distinguishing between factual information and opinion or speculation. The use of technical terms like 'autopen' is explained, which aids comprehension, but the logical flow could be improved to enhance understanding of the legal and historical context.

Source quality

The article cites statements from Trump and his press secretary but lacks input from independent legal experts or constitutional scholars. The reliance on Trump's assertions without corroborating sources or evidence diminishes the credibility of the reporting. The mention of the Heritage Foundation's analysis is not supported by direct evidence or a detailed explanation of their methodology, further impacting the reliability of the sources used.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the use of autopens and the constitutional basis for presidential pardons, but it does not clearly explain the methodology behind the claims or the potential conflicts of interest. The story could benefit from more transparency regarding the sources of information and the legal framework governing pardons, which would help readers understand the basis of the claims and their implications.