#executive-orders — Public Fediverse posts

A look at birthright citizenship, and how it’s seen around the world

The Supreme Court is once again hearing arguments on whether President Donald Trump can deny citizenship to …
#NewsBeep #News #Headlines #Australia #Courts #DCWire #DistrictofColumbia #DonaldTrump #Europe #Executiveorders #Generalnews #Germany #Governmentandpolitics #Immigration #NewHampshire #NHStateWire #Politics #SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates #UnitedStates #Us #USA #Washingtonnews #Worldnews
https://www.newsbeep.com/461821/

More coverage of Friday's appellate briefs from the four #LawFirms who stood up for the #Constitution against the tyranny of Trump's extortionate #ExecutiveOrders.

• (paywallled) https://www.law360.com/articles/2458839 "Firms Targeted By Trump Urge DC Circ. To Uphold EO Rulings"

How is it this terse and hard to unpack? Does... does Law360 think they are print journalism?

• https://www.jdjournal.com/2026/03/30/law-firms-urge-court-to-uphold-block-on-trump-orders/ — A great example of how trying to sound fair to both sides can minimize the fact that one side is completely crazypants, is an affront to the Constitution, and is willing to drag us all to hell. SNAFU.

I guess we're lucky that anyone in the "view from nowhere" camp even covered Friday's briefs because it's not getting a lot over coverage from the big networks with more visible failures like the elective war based on overdependence on AIs trained to be echo chambers replacing critical thought and Trump deciding first to put untrained ICE agents in airports to "help" TSA without a plan and then deciding that if the Constitution says he has to negotiate with Congress then laws mean nothing.

• https://abovethelaw.com/2026/03/biglaw-to-d-c-circuit-this-isnt-just-about-us-its-about-whether-the-president-can-put-lawyers-on-a-leash/

> Biglaw To D.C. Circuit: This Isn’t Just About Us — It’s About Whether The President Can Put Lawyers On A Leash

> Susman, Jenner, Perkins, and Wilmer say the executive orders are retaliatory, abusive, and very much not okay.

Now that's the headline I want to see.

And the author, Kathryn Rubino, ends the piece showing she and the law firms knows what's at stake:

> The question isn’t whether Biglaw can survive; it’s whether the legal system, as we understand it, can.

But, I guess Liz Dye is busy, because there could always be room for sharper language. :)

Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.

#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.

#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review.

First day Executive Orders for next President -

1. Rescind all Executive Orders from past President.
2. Disband ICE.
3. Rename Kennedy Centre - assuming it’s still there and not replaced by a Trump Tower.
3. Demolish whatever exists of Ballroom.

Then get to the rest…

#usa #president2028 #executiveorders #ICE #kennedycenter #whitehouse #ballroom

Previously, I wrote:

> Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest.

But that's because the #Trump DOJ is hammering on the language of Department of Navy v. Egan (1988) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/518/ and Lee v. Garland (2024) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/20-5221/20-5221-2024-10-29.html with all the bluster of a con artist or chat bot in a self-reinforcement loop. But both those cases were predicated on the presumption of regularity — that the appropriate agency, following procedure, undertook a careful determination and the review of which is a nonjusticiable political question. Trump's four #ExecutiveOrders make it clear that none of that happened and all of this is retaliation for not capitulating. And NRA v. Vullo (2024) https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-842 seems to say that is coercion in violation of the First Amendment.

So #MikeMasnick argues https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/09/doj-un-drops-its-appeal-against-law-firms-files-brief-that-gets-the-first-amendment-exactly-backwards/

> The brief actually cites NRA v. Vullo, .... The Supreme Court held —unanimously — that government officials using their regulatory authority to punish or suppress disfavored private speech can violate the First Amendment, even if the official frames their actions in terms of legitimate regulatory interests.

...

> Vullo actually undercuts their entire argument. The point of the Vullo framework is that when government speech is coupled with government action designed to punish disfavored private expression, the combination can be unconstitutional coercion. The administration [tries the ruse of] ”Section 1 is just government speech.” That’s precisely the move Vullo says you can’t get away with.

So maybe that security clearance revocation is just as much Jello as Trump's Florida lawsuit against the BBC.

Here we go. #Anthropic sues the Government for labeling it a security risk out of animus. #WilmerHale, one of the #LawFirms that stood up to #Trump's bullying #ExecutiveOrders now gets paid to explain again that the government doesn't get to have hurt feelings.

Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War (California N.D. 26-cv-01996) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379655/anthropic-pbc-v-us-department-of-war/

Five counts, one theme — animus omnia vitiat:

Count I — APA / 10 U.S.C. § 3252 — The "supply chain risk" designation doesn't follow the statute or the facts.

Count II — First Amendment Retaliation — "AI shouldn't autonomously kill people" is protected speech.

Count III — Ultra Vires / Article II — No law lets a President destroy a company by social media post.

Count IV — Fifth Amendment Due Process — You can't de facto debar someone with no notice, no hearing, no findings.

Count V — APA § 558 — Agencies can't impose sanctions outside their delegated authority.

The Trump Administration had a temper tantrum and said "You're not the boss of me, I'm the boss of you. I'll end you!". Anthropic points out that animus is no substitute for #RuleOfLaw.

So why did they sue #Hegseth's #DepartmentOfWar rather than the statutory #DepartmentOfDefense? Because Trump authorized the name, because it shows respect to #Hegseth's sensitive feelings, and because it underscores the ridiculousness of the government tasking #AI to kill (and surveil) people autonomously. #skynet! On the off-chance the judge orders a caption change, their hands are clean and the lawyer's can't point to any act of defiance.

https://gizmodo.com/anthropic-officially-sues-the-pentagon-for-labeling-the-ai-company-a-supply-chain-risk-2000731365

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/48126931/donald-trump-plans-executive-order-solve-every-problem-raised-college-sports-panel
#Trump thinks #executiveorders can solve anything like a dictator issuing #edicts. He also thinks he's the emperor of the USA. Just what we fought against in the revolution.

Their Conspiracies Just Broadcast What They'll Do When in Power 1/5
"Obama's coming after your guns!" He couldn't get gun laws thru the #Senate & his #ExecutiveOrders would trigger background checks, require licenses.
>Despite issuing #pardons for his own armed #Jan6 attackers, our #DearLeader says when #liberals like #AlexPretti bring guns to #protests, they deserve to be murdered by his #brownshirts.
#fascist #USA #GOP #DOJ #NRA #ICE #SCOTUS #NoKings #OurPutin
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/obama-tears-into-the-nra-at-town-hall-on-gun-violence

Via #LLRX 12 ways #Trump admin dismantled #civilrights #law and the foundations of inclusive #democracy in its first year. Spencer Overton, Prof of Law, George Washington University, homes in on how after Donald Trump’s second inauguration, a pattern emerges. Across dozens of #executiveorders, agency memos, funding decisions and enforcement changes, the administration has weakened federal civil rights law and the foundations of the country’s racially inclusive democracy. https://www.llrx.com/2026/01/12-ways-the-trump-administration-dismantled-civil-rights-law/

Half of U.S. trans teens live in a state that restricts their rights: study

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/news/half-transgender-teens-restrictive-laws

Opinion – In 230 Executive Orders, Trump Has Reshaped America – The New York Times

Opinion

Drafting A New America

Photographs and Text
by Taryn Simon

In his first year back in office, Mr. Trump put his signature on more presidential directives than he did in his entire first term. On the first day of his second term, at the Capitol and before a crowd of cheering supporters, he set the agenda for his incoming administration, issuing executive orders, proclamations and memorandums that mirrored the talking points of his campaign: identifying government waste, ending D.E.I. programs and birthright citizenship, restoring TikTok, pardoning Jan. 6 protesters and defending the American flag. 

These orders are at the center of Mr. Trump’s presidency. He often gives his own custom pens to people who witness him signing the documents. On Inauguration Day in 2025, he spontaneously threw pens to his audience. 

After turning a spotlight on the 2024 election, the photographer Taryn Simon has trained her focus on the significant details and intended outcomes of the documents that bear Mr. Trump’s name.

“Executive orders are a privileged override switch accelerating change without any legislative intervention,” she said. “One by one, in a carousel of documents, a nation is pointed in a new direction.”

Executive Order 14347

Restoring the United States
Department of War

George Washington established the Department of War in 1789. It was renamed the Department of Defense in 1949 following a reorganization by President Harry S. Truman. 

Almost two months after Mr. Trump returned to office, Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, conducted a poll on X to gauge public support for changing the name back to the Department of War. The Department of War received more votes.

At the signing by Mr. Trump, Mr. Hegseth said, “This name change is not just about renaming. It’s about restoring. Words matter.” 

While waiting for approval from Congress for the change, the gift shop at the Pentagon is already selling merchandise with Department of War branding, including a glass tumbler.

 Editor’s Note: Read online is best, a long but valuable listing with images. These are the non-Congress, non-approved by anyone, changes Trump has made so far. Altered the fabric of American society, and Democracy, and weakened both. –DrWeb

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Opinion | In 230 Executive Orders, Trump Has Reshaped America – The New York Times

The United States still does not have a "national language." No amount of #ExecutiveOrders can change that because those are MEMOS

UNC System details painstaking process to root out diversity, equity and inclusion  – NC Newsline

• State, Local Govt.
• Education
• Environment
• Courts, Justice
• Commentary
• Podcasts
• National
• Higher Ed
• Race
• State, Local Govt.

UNC System details painstaking process to root out diversity, equity and inclusion 

By: Clayton Henkel – January 8, 2026 9:00 am

The University of North Carolina System assured state legislators Wednesday that they are doing everything in their power to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion language and programs across the 17-campus system.

The UNC Board of Governors voted in May 2024 to formally repeal the system’s policy on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in favor of “principled neutrality.”

Still, equity has remained in the political crosshairs, with Republicans lawmakers filing multiple bills in the 2025 session to  prohibit the support, funding or implementation of DEI programs in state government and education.

Bart Goodson, the UNC System’s senior vice president for government affairs, told members of the House Select Committee on Government Efficiency that by the time President Trump’s executive orders on discrimination and DEI rolled out in January 2025, the system was ahead of the curve.

Goodson said each campus was advised on the remaining steps necessary to bring campuses into full compliance with the Trump administration’s orders.

“The guidance emphasizes the policies refocus on student success and reminds campuses of the constant, ongoing vigilance campuses must use,” said Goodson.

A memo from the system also mandated that all general education requirements that included completion of course credits related to diversity, equity and inclusion be suspended.

The system further mandated an annual campus reporting requirement with the chancellor’s signature to verify compliance.

To date, 59 positions tied to DEI have been eliminated and 131 have been realigned. The system estimates that the implementation of the equality policy across the University of North Carolina system has saved $17.1 million. The savings have been redirected to student mental health, military and veteran student services and academic advising, according to Goodson.

But efforts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion from higher education in North Carolina have not been quick or easy.

“We’re turning over every stone,” Goodson told committee members.

The campuses have manually reviewed more than 4,756 web pages, revised 1,270 web pages, and reviewed over 8,000 gifts, including scholarships and grants. Of those gift funds, 345 were flagged, 29 amended, with some spending paused. Funding from 85 foundations required working with individual donors to bring agreements into compliance.

“It takes a lot of manpower and a lot of man hours to review this information,” Goodson told the committee. “It’s a time-consuming area.”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: UNC System details painstaking process to root out diversity, equity and inclusion  • NC Newsline

@fkamiah17 #ExecutiveOrders are not laws. #ICE #Gestapo are screwed when the #American #NurembergTrials get going.

#NSPM7 is not law.
#ExecutiveOrders are not law.

The FBI has no business "enforcing" memos from the pedophile in the Oval Office.

#NSPM7 is NOT law and is unconstitutional. #ExecutiveOrders are not laws, and many #trump shits are also not legal in any way, shape, or form.

Choosing to act on these MEMOS as if they are law, WILL land you in prison for a very long time when the trials start

Transgender NSA employee files discrimination lawsuit against Trump administration

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender-nsa-employee-trump-lawsuit

I forget. Which party was all uppity about states' rights?!??

#ai #genai #laws #statelaws #uspol #trump #techbros #broligarchs #bullshit #fuckedup #executiveorders #news

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-signs-executive-order-seeking-ban-state-laws-ai-rcna248741

DOJ Plans to End Sexual Violence Protections for Incarcerated LGBTQIA+ People

https://murica.website/2025/12/doj-plans-to-end-sexual-violence-protections-for-incarcerated-lgbtqia-people/

Here's what Zohran Mamdani has promised to do for LGBTQ+ New Yorkers as mayor

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/zohran-mamdani-lgbtq-campaign-promises

Autopens, Executive Orders, and the Rule of Law – A DWD Special Report

Autopens, Executive Orders, and the Rule of Law

What really happens when one president tries to erase another’s signature?

Donald Trump has announced that he is cancelling all executive orders and “anything else” from the Biden administration that were signed using an autopen, claiming those documents are invalid and even hinting at perjury charges if Joe Biden says he personally authorized them. The move has thrilled some supporters and outraged critics, but beneath the rhetoric is a basic question of law:

• Are autopen-signed executive orders legally valid?
• Can a sitting president simply declare them void?

On both counts, the short answer from mainstream legal analysis is: autopens are lawful, and Trump’s blanket cancellation theory is on very thin ice.

Editor’s Note: The analysis here is by Perplexity Plus, and my review and edits. Here’s a sample article that announces Trump’s actions. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cancels-biden-orders-signed-autopen –there are several. So let’s deep dive a bit…

What Trump Is Claiming

In recent statements and social posts, Trump has argued that a huge share of Biden’s executive actions were signed not by Biden’s own hand but by an autopen—essentially a mechanical signature device—and that these are therefore “null and void.” He has suggested that aides, not Biden, made the decisions and that if Biden now claims personal involvement he could face perjury charges.

That claim rests on two big leaps:

1. That the physical act of handwriting the signature is required for legality;
2. That using an autopen inherently proves the president wasn’t really the decision-maker.

Both propositions collide head-on with modern practice and with existing legal opinions from the Justice Department.

What Is an Autopen and Why Has It Been Used?

An autopen is a device that reproduces a person’s signature with real ink. It is not new, and it is not unique to Biden. Presidents from at least George W. Bush onward have authorized autopen signatures on official correspondence, and Barack Obama famously used an autopen to sign a Patriot Act extension while traveling abroad, based on prior legal clearance from the Department of Justice.

The core idea is simple: the decision must be the president’s; the ink stroke can be delegated to a machine, as long as it is done under his direction.

Are Autopen-Signed Orders Legal?

Yes. The key legal backdrop is a 2005 opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In that memo, OLC concluded that the president may “sign” a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution by directing a subordinate to affix his signature—explicitly including use of an autopen—so long as the president has made the underlying decision and authorized the signature.

That logic carries over to executive orders and other presidential instruments. The law cares about:

• Who made the decision? — The president cannot delegate the actual decision to approve or disapprove.
• How is that decision manifested? — The physical act of writing the name can be delegated or mechanized.

In other words, an autopen signature authorized by the president is treated as the president’s signature. The courts, Congress, and multiple administrations have proceeded on that assumption for nearly two decades. If Trump were to argue that autopen use is categorically invalid, he would be challenging not only Biden’s practice, but settled executive-branch legal interpretation and a bipartisan history of use—including his own administration’s reliance on mechanical signing for lower-stakes documents.

Can a President Revoke a Predecessor’s Executive Orders?

Here Trump’s position is on firmer, but still limited, ground. As a general rule, any sitting president may:

• Amend,
• Rescind, or
• Replace

executive orders issued by a prior administration, so long as he stays within constitutional and statutory limits. Executive orders are internal directives for the executive branch; they are not statutes and do not bind a successor president forever. That’s why one administration can undo or rewrite the regulatory priorities of another.

So, yes: Trump can revoke Biden-era executive orders as a matter of policy choice. We’ve already seen him move to roll back or rewrite specific Biden orders. Future litigation will focus on what he does in the substance of those revocations, not the mere fact that he did them.

What is novel—and shaky—is his attempt to tie the legality of those orders to the method of signature and to retroactively declare large swaths of them void because they were signed by autopen.

The Problem with Retroactive “Autopen” Invalidation

Trump’s announced approach tries to do something different from the normal policy-based revocation of executive orders. Instead of saying “I disagree with these policies and am replacing them,” he suggests:

These orders were never valid in the first place, because they were signed with an autopen, so I am cancelling them as illegal and potentially criminal.

That creates several rule-of-law problems:

1. It contradicts existing legal guidance. OLC’s 2005 opinion and subsequent practices assume autopen signatures are valid when authorized by the president. Calling them inherently “forged” would require either repudiating that legal framework or proving that Biden never authorized the decisions.
2. It is retroactive. For years, agencies, states, and private parties have relied on those Biden orders as valid. Retroactively invalidating them on a technicality invites chaos in programs, contracts, and rights that grew up under those orders.
3. It is categorical, not case-by-case. Instead of alleging specific instances of fraud (“this particular order was not actually authorized by Biden”), the rhetoric paints nearly all autopen-signed actions as suspect. Courts usually prefer tailored remedies, not sweeping retrospective erasures.
4. It looks politically targeted. The move singles out one predecessor, on a theory that—if truly accepted—would raise questions about other administrations’ autopen practices as well. The selectivity underscores the political, rather than legal, impulse.

How Would Courts Look at This?

If lawsuits follow—and they almost certainly would—courts are unlikely to start by deciding whether they like Biden or Trump. They will ask:

• Was the original executive order within the president’s lawful authority?
• Did the president (Biden) actually approve the action?
• Is the current president (Trump) acting within his authority in revoking or refusing to recognize the order?

On the first two questions, the existence of a longstanding OLC opinion and decades of executive practice with autopens will weigh heavily in favor of validity. On the third question, courts generally accept that presidents can revoke prior executive orders—but not that they can rewrite history to say those orders never legally existed if they were properly authorized at the time.

The Supreme Court has also shown institutional concern for stability in government operations. Even justices skeptical of “administrative overreach” have not shown much appetite for retroactively vaporizing large categories of past acts based on novel procedural theories. Doing so here could destabilize not only Biden-era orders but potentially any action signed via autopen going forward.

What About Pardons and Other Acts?

Trump and some allies have also gestured at Biden’s clemency decisions, suggesting that pardons or commutations bearing an autopen signature might be revisited. Here the law is even clearer:

• Once a valid presidential pardon is issued, it is generally understood to be final and irrevocable.
• The method of signature does not change the constitutional nature of the clemency power, so long as the decision was the president’s.

In practice, that means attempts to claw back already-granted pardons on an autopen theory would face extremely stiff resistance in court. Even legal scholars sympathetic to a strong executive are wary of letting a later president un-pardon people based on how the document was signed.

Politics, “Enemies,” and the Rule of Law

From a political perspective, the autopen narrative functions as another tool in a larger project: casting a predecessor as illegitimate or incapacitated and suggesting that their official acts are suspect on that basis. The language of “forgery,” “perjury,” and “null and void” is aimed less at administrative lawyers and more at a political audience already primed to see Biden as unfit.

From a rule-of-law perspective, that is precisely why the theory is dangerous. If every change of administration brought not only policy reversals but retroactive attacks on the very validity of the prior president’s signature, the stability of executive governance would be at risk. Agencies, states, businesses, and ordinary citizens would never know which actions are safe to rely on.

Healthy democratic accountability means we absolutely can argue over policies and revoke prior orders through lawful channels. But turning autograph style into a weapon against a former president’s entire record is a different move—and one that courts, if asked, may well decline to endorse.

Key Takeaways

• Autopens are legally recognized tools for presidential signatures, as long as the president makes and authorizes the underlying decision.
• Any sitting president can revoke prior executive orders as a policy matter, but cannot simply declare them historically void due to autopen use.
• Retroactively invalidating large categories of actions would create legal chaos and undercut reliance interests across government and society.
• Courts are likely to view broad “autopen invalidation” moves as politically motivated and legally weak, compared to ordinary, case-specific challenges.
• The real story is less about pens and more about power: who gets to define which presidential acts “count” when the political winds shift.

Editor’s Note

This essay is researched and sourced, with commentary and analysis, not legal advice. It reflects the public record on autopens, executive orders, and presidential practice as of late 2025, along with mainstream interpretations from constitutional scholars and legal observers, and the analysis and edits by the authors. –DrWeb & Perplexity

Sources & Further Reading (MLA 9)

• Justice Department, Office of Legal Counsel. “Whether the President May Sign a Bill by Directing That His Signature Be Affixed to It.” U.S. Department of Justice, 7 July 2005, https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/whether-president-may-sign-bill-directing-his-signature-be-affixed-it .
• Congressional Research Service. Executive Orders: An Introduction. 29 Mar. 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11032 .
• Bomboy, Scott. “Defining the President’s Constitutional Powers to Issue Executive Orders.” National Constitution Center, 29 Jan. 2025, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/defining-the-presidents-constitutional-powers-to-issue-executive-orders .
• “Executive Orders.” American Bar Association – Public Education, 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/executiveorders/ .
• “Judicial Review of Executive Orders.” Federal Judicial Center, https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/judicial-review-executive-orders .
• Whelan, M. Edward III, et al. “Whether the President May Sign a Bill by Directing That His Signature Be Affixed to It.” Office of Legal Counsel Opinions, vol. 29, 2005, pp. 97–104. justice.gov .
• “Obama ‘Autopens’ Patriot Act Extension into Law.” CBS News, 27 May 2011, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-autopens-patriot-act-extension-into-law/ .
• Turnipseed, Tony L. “The President and the Autopen.” Journal of Technology Law & Policy, vol. 17, 2012, https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/jtlp/vol17/iss1/4/ .
• Associated Press. “Presidents Have Used Autopens for Decades. Now Trump Is Attacking Biden’s Use.” AP News, 17 Mar. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/biden-autopen-trump-executive-orders-00e8e0dfca0284 .
• “What Is an Autopen and Why Can’t Trump Stop Talking About It?” The Guardian, 29 Nov. 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/29/autopen-trump-biden-executive-orders .
• “Trump Says He Is Canceling All Biden Executive Orders Signed With Autopen.” The Wall Street Journal, 28 Nov. 2025, https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-biden-autopen-executive-orders .
• “Trump Threatens Biden with ‘Charges of Perjury.’” New York Post, 28 Nov. 2025, https://nypost.com/2025/11/28/news/trump-threatens-biden-over-autopen/ .
• “Legal Analysts React to Trump’s Plan to Terminate Biden Executive Orders.” Newsweek, 28 Nov. 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/trump-biden-autopen-legal-experts-react-1861234 .
• U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Accountability. The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House. 24 Oct. 2025, https://oversight.house.gov/release/the-biden-autopen-presidency-report .
• “Reviewing Certain Presidential Actions.” The White House, 4 June 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2025/06/04/reviewing-certain-presidential-actions/ .

#2005OlcOpinion #2025 #autopens #bibliography #cancellingBidensAutopenOrders #cbsNews #courtsPredictions #doj #donaldTrump #dwdSpecialReport #executiveOrders #history #howSigned #legal #mla #modernPractice #opinion #pardons #perplexity #perplexityPlus #politicalEnemies #politics #resistance #revocation #ruleOfLaw #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

Donald Trump has announced that all documents signed via autopen during Joe Biden’s presidency are “terminated”, potentially affecting executive orders from 2021–2024. Legal ambiguity persists. https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/world/trump-biden-autopen-signatures-executive-orders-phuw1b6a?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #DonaldTrump #JoeBiden #Autopen #ExecutiveOrders #USPolitics

#DozyDonald goes after #Biden #executiveorders with baseless #autopen claims.

#Trump claims without evidence Biden did not sign off on orders himself in latest attack on predecessor.

#TrumpRegime #USPol #auspol

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/29/trump-administration-news-updates-today

Megan Herbert, The Age
Trump’s threat ‘to go after people’ didn’t scare the Age’s Megan Herbet

#cartoons
#Trump
#ExecutiveOrders

92% autopen? 😂 Impossible. Presidents use autopen legally. Erasing all Biden orders out of spite = abuse of power. Personal grudges don’t override the Constitution.”

#Autopen #ExecutiveOrders #Trump #Biden #AbuseOfPower #FactCheck #Constitution

President Trump says he’s canceling executive orders Biden signed with autopen device. @CBSNews reports:

https://flip.it/k0P3NY

#News #Politics #USA #Trump #Biden #ExecutiveOrders

https://winbuzzer.com/2025/11/26/trump-stalls-ai-preemption-order-after-maga-revolt-pivots-to-genesis-mission-xcxwbn/

Trump Stalls AI Preemption Order After MAGA Revolt, Pivots to ‘Genesis Mission’

#AI #DonaldTrump #Politics #BigTech #AIRegulation #ExecutiveOrders #USGovernment #TechPolicy #RonDeSantis #JoshHawley #GenesisMission #BEAD #Broadband