Trump Declares Biden’s Autopen Orders, Documents Null and Void
President Donald Trump announced that any document former President Joe Biden signed using the autopen has been “hereby terminated.” The Trump administration has repeatedly criticized the previous administration’s reliance on the device, which applies a signature to documents without the president physically signing them.
Critics of the former president argued that documents were signed without Biden’s knowledge, fueling claims that his cognitive ability declined during his time in the White House, Mediaite reported.
Biden has rejected those allegations and said he was personally responsible for every pardon issued in the final days of his presidency.
“Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect,” Trump wrote.
“The Autopen is not allowed to be used if approval is not specifically given by the President of the United States. The Radical Left Lunatics circling Biden around the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office took the Presidency away from him. I am hereby cancelling all Executive Orders, and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden, because the people who operated the Autopen did so illegally. Joe Biden was not involved in the Autopen process and, if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury.”
Presidents are believed to have used versions of the autopen for more than 200 years, dating back to Thomas Jefferson, who obtained one after it was patented in 1803, according to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation.
Gerald Ford, Lyndon B. Johnson, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all known to have used the device.
Obama became the first president to use an autopen to sign legislation in 2011.
In 2005, during the Bush administration, the Justice Department concluded the autopen is legal.
“A person may sign a document by directing that his signature be affixed to it by another,” a DOJ memo said. Legal scholars have also noted that the Constitution does not require presidents to personally sign pardons.
Trump made similar allegations about Biden’s autopen use in June, at which time he called for an investigation.
On Oct. 28, the Republican led House Oversight Committee recommended the Justice Department investigate the issue.
The White House responded to questions about how Biden’s orders could be “terminated” by referring back to Trump’s Truth Social post.
Trump told reporters in March that he has used the autopen “only for very unimportant papers.”
“You know, we get thousands and thousands of letters, letters of support for young people, from people that aren’t feeling well, etcetera,” Trump said.
“But to sign pardons and all of the things that he signed with an autopen is disgraceful.”
In a July interview with The New York Times, Biden said Republicans are “liars” for claiming he was unaware of his own White House actions that were signed using the autopen.
“I made every decision,” Biden said.
President Trump announced Thursday that he plans to temporarily halt immigration from third-world countries following the shooting of two National Guard troops in Washington, D.C. In a post on Truth Social, the president said the nation has advanced technologically but “Immigration Policy has eroded those gains and living conditions for many,” RedState
He wrote that he will “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover, terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions, including those signed by Sleepy Joe Biden’s Autopen, and remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country, end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization.”
The Federal Move That Could Reshape Los Angeles — And Reignite America’s Homelessness Debate
Los Angeles has spent years trying to confront one of the most visible and politically difficult crises in America: homelessness.
Billions in public spending, emergency programs, housing initiatives, outreach campaigns, and years of policy experimentation have attempted to address conditions that continue to affect neighborhoods across the city. Yet despite unprecedented investment, public frustration has remained high.
Now, a major federal funding suspension and an expanding review process are placing Los Angeles’ homelessness response system under a level of scrutiny that could carry consequences far beyond Southern California.
At the center of the controversy is the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LASA), an agency that has played a central role in coordinating housing and homelessness programs throughout the region.
Federal officials, according to reports and public discussion surrounding the review, have raised concerns regarding oversight practices, financial controls, administrative safeguards, and whether current structures sufficiently protect taxpayer resources.
The move has immediately transformed what was once primarily a local policy challenge into a national political and governance debate.
A Growing Federal Spotlight on Public Spending
The latest developments emerged after reports indicated that federal housing-related funding connected to homelessness initiatives may face temporary suspension while investigators continue reviewing operational and financial procedures.
Officials involved in the review reportedly cited concerns involving internal controls, compliance structures, accountability mechanisms, and broader questions surrounding program effectiveness.
While no final findings have been announced, the decision alone signals an unusually aggressive level of federal oversight. That shift matters.
Los Angeles has become one of the most watched examples in the national homelessness conversation because of both the scale of the crisis and the scale of spending directed toward solving it.
Over recent years, agencies connected to homelessness response efforts have overseen enormous funding streams intended to support emergency shelter, housing access, outreach operations, treatment services, case management, and stabilization programs.
Supporters argue those investments reflect the complexity of modern homelessness.
Critics increasingly ask a different question:
If so much money has been invested, why do visible conditions remain so difficult across many communities?
Why This Debate Has Become Politically Explosive
Homelessness has evolved into one of the defining political issues in Los Angeles.
Residents continue raising concerns about encampments, public safety, sanitation, addiction treatment capacity, mental health services, and the availability of permanent housing solutions.
Political leaders across ideological lines have faced growing pressure to demonstrate measurable progress.
As frustration rises, spending itself has become part of the debate.
Supporters of stronger oversight argue that public trust depends not only on funding programs but also on proving that those programs deliver results.
They say transparency becomes especially important when large taxpayer investments are involved.
Others caution that judging outcomes purely through visible street conditions ignores the broader reality of homelessness policy.
Services often extend beyond shelter alone and include medical care, prevention programs, outreach networks, legal assistance, long-term housing support, and crisis intervention systems.
From that perspective, measuring success is more complicated than counting visible encampments.
The Numbers Conversation — And Why It’s More Complicated Than It Looks
One reason the issue continues generating national attention is the scale involved.
Reports frequently reference tens of thousands of individuals experiencing homelessness across Los Angeles County, making the region one of the largest service environments in the United States.
Those figures have fueled public calculations comparing total expenditures against estimated population counts.
Critics argue those comparisons suggest inefficient spending.
Program defenders respond that such calculations oversimplify costs associated with housing development, healthcare delivery, addiction recovery services, staffing, infrastructure, emergency response systems, and compliance requirements.
Both arguments now collide under increasing public scrutiny.
And that tension may ultimately become one of the defining policy battles of the coming years.
The Debate Expanded Beyond Homelessness
The federal review has also reignited broader conversations surrounding governance, public accountability, and institutional trust.
Questions have emerged about how large public-service systems operate, how oversight should function, and whether existing structures incentivize measurable outcomes.
Separate public debates have referenced concerns involving voter registration practices among vulnerable populations and how administrative safeguards should operate in public-facing systems.
Election officials and legal experts have repeatedly emphasized that isolated cases should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of widespread systemic abuse.
At the same time, critics continue arguing that stronger oversight remains necessary to maintain public confidence.
These debates increasingly overlap, creating a conversation that now extends well beyond homelessness itself.
Los Angeles Faces a Difficult Balancing Act
City leaders and organizations connected to homelessness programs have pushed back against suggestions that large-scale wrongdoing has been established.
Supporters warn that interruptions to funding could impact services relied upon by vulnerable residents.
That concern highlights the central challenge facing policymakers.
How do governments demand stronger accountability without disrupting care for people already living in crisis?
There are no easy answers.
But one reality appears increasingly difficult to ignore:
Public patience is wearing thin, and expectations for measurable outcomes continue rising.
What Happens Next May Extend Far Beyond California
Investigators, auditors, oversight officials, and legal authorities are expected to continue reviewing available information before any final conclusions are reached.
Until that process concludes, many allegations remain questions under examination rather than established findings.
But the broader impact may already be unfolding.
Because what happens next in Los Angeles could shape how cities across America structure homelessness programs, measure performance, distribute funding, and restore public trust.
This story is no longer only about one agency.
It has become a test of whether America’s largest cities can convince voters that ambitious social programs are capable of delivering visible results in an era of growing demands for accountability.
