In a recent turn of events that seems like something straight out of a political thriller, former President Donald Trump has initiated an investigation targeting President Joe Biden’s use of pardons and executive actions. This unprecedented inquiry aims to question the legitimacy of Biden’s decisions, particularly suggesting that he may have been mentally unfit to perform his duties. As Trump seeks to bolster his narrative about Biden’s cognitive capabilities, the political landscape grows increasingly complex.
What’s Behind Trump’s Investigation?
The primary objective of Trump’s investigation is to examine whether aides to Biden concealed the president’s purported decline in mental acuity from the public. On Thursday, Trump directed the White House counsel and Attorney General to investigate the validity of Biden’s pardons and his use of an autopen—an automatic signing device used to affix signatures to documents. Trump’s insistence that the validity of these actions hangs in the balance indicates a strategic approach to undermine the credibility of Biden’s presidency.
At 79 years old, Trump has persistently questioned Biden’s physical and mental fitness, especially considering Biden’s age—82—and his current treatment for prostate cancer. While the claims and implications are far-reaching, they lack solid evidence, as Trump himself has admitted. This lends more to speculation than to any verifiable claims.
Implications of the Inquiry
The inquiry has two-fold implications. Firstly, it formally escalates Trump’s attacks on his political rival and lays the groundwork for Republicans across the country to contest Biden’s legitimacy. If successful, this investigation could provide a rallying cry for Republican leaders, amplifying the narrative that Biden’s actions as president are invalid or less significant.
Legal experts suggest that while this investigation may galvanize Trump’s base, its actual impact may be negligible. Richard Pildes, a constitutional law scholar, mentioned that it is more of a political maneuver than one with substantial legal ramifications. Courts are unlikely to second-guess executive actions simply based on allegations of an executive’s mental state, particularly since every current president has the authority to overturn previous executive actions.
What Types of Executive Actions Are Under Scrutiny?
Among the many areas that Trump’s investigation covers, the most contentious are Biden’s pardons—specifically those granted before leaving office. Trump has raised questions about whether Biden was fully aware of the immigration policies and social issues being pushed by his aides, suggesting a detachment from critical decisions made during his administration.
But executive orders, while influential, can easily be undone by subsequent administrations. Trump’s current challenge lies in the permanency of executive actions like pardons, which, once granted, cannot be revoked by another president. This foreshadows a strategic dilemma for Trump should he wish to reverse Biden’s particular pardons or judicial appointments.
Understanding the Autopen
One key point of contention in this debate is the autopen, a device long recognized by both Republican and Democratic administrations for its use in affixing presidential signatures on documents. Autopens save time and are often utilized for tasks like responding to correspondence. Legal experts contend that if the use of an autopen is directive under presidential authority, it remains valid—regardless of how it’s applied. This raises significant doubts about the legitimacy of Trump’s claims regarding Biden’s pardons and executive orders.
Constitutional Authority of Pardons
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution bestows upon the president the power to grant pardons. The legal consensus, as outlined by experts, is that once a pardon is issued, it cannot be undone. Therefore, Trump’s assertions regarding the autopen and the wisdom behind Biden’s decisions cast a long shadow but may not hold up under legal scrutiny.
American University politics professor Jeffrey Crouch points out that if pardons were revocable, they would lack permanence—undermining their purpose. Moreover, as stated by Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield, “the president’s authority is the president’s authority,” emphasizing the legal soundness of executed pardons regardless of the method used for signing.
Biden’s Response
Biden has largely brushed off Trump’s accusations, labeling them as inconsequential distractions. In a statement, he stated, “I made the decisions during my presidency… Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.” By standing firmly against the implications of Trump’s inquiry, Biden seeks to reclaim the narrative that his decision-making abilities remain intact.
Historical Context
While presidents have faced scrutiny over their mental fitness, Trump’s effort to formally investigate a predecessor is without historic precedent. Past presidents have been criticized for perceived impairments, but such matters have rarely escalated to formal investigations. The question of cognitive fitness has circulated regarding figures like Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagan, but nothing compares to the current political climate in which allegations become fodder for interrogative inquiries.
The Political Landscape Moving Forward
As this investigation unfolds, it serves to highlight the increasingly polarized nature of U.S. politics. Trump’s focus on Biden’s mental acuity feeds into a broader narrative that stokes division among party lines. While the initial aim might be to challenge Biden’s presidency, it simultaneously ignites debates around the boundaries of presidential power and accountability.
As we move forward, the implications of these investigations could very well reverberate throughout the upcoming election cycles, shaping the parameters of political discourse in a divided nation.
In summary, while Trump’s investigation into Biden’s pardons and executive actions raises significant questions, it also highlights deep-rooted divisions and challenges in contemporary U.S. politics. As both parties navigate this complex landscape, the ongoing discourse about presidential authority and accountability will only grow more critical.
