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
reported.
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.”
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
Tensions between Washington and Ottawa have taken an extraordinary turn — not over trade, defense, or tariffs — but over water.
Amid deepening drought conditions across the American West, President Donald Trump raised the idea that Canada’s vast freshwater reserves could help alleviate shortages in states like California, Arizona, and Nevada. While he stopped short of issuing a formal demand, his remarks suggesting Canada’s water could act like a “large faucet” for the United States ignited immediate controversy.
Ottawa’s response was swift — and unequivocal.
Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected any suggestion that Canada’s freshwater resources are up for negotiation, declaring them a sovereign public trust and “not a commodity to be controlled or transferred under external pressure.”
The exchange has exposed a deeper fault line in North American relations: how nations respond to resource scarcity in an era of climate stress.
The Drought Reality in the American West
The American Southwest is facing sustained water pressure:
The Colorado River system is under historic strain.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell remain below long-term averages.
Rapid population growth continues in water-stressed regions.
Agriculture in California and Arizona is increasingly vulnerable.
Cities including Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles are investing heavily in conservation, wastewater recycling, and desalination. But long-term projections show continued volatility as climate change alters snowpack and runoff patterns.
In that context, Trump’s comments about Canada’s freshwater abundance resonated with some U.S. observers who see continental resource sharing as pragmatic.
What Canada Actually Controls
Canada holds roughly 20% of the world’s freshwater resources — though much of that is locked in glaciers, remote watersheds, or flows northward away from population centers.
The two countries already cooperate extensively on shared water systems, most notably through:
The Great Lakes agreements
The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909)
The Columbia River Treaty
British Columbia recently confirmed that discussions regarding the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty are under review by the U.S. administration — though no formal collapse of agreements has occurred.
What has not happened is any formal U.S. demand for ownership or control of Canadian water infrastructure. The dispute remains rhetorical — but politically charged.
Why Ottawa Drew a Hard Line
Carney’s refusal reflects longstanding Canadian policy.
Canada has historically resisted:
Bulk freshwater export proposals
Cross-border water diversion megaprojects
Treating freshwater as a tradable commodity under trade agreements
The concern in Ottawa is not short-term sales — it’s legal precedent. If water were formally commodified, it could fall under international trade dispute mechanisms, potentially limiting Canada’s ability to regulate its own supply in the future.
Canadian leaders across party lines have traditionally viewed water sovereignty as non-negotiable.
Carney framed the issue in environmental and strategic terms:
Climate volatility affects Canadian watersheds too.
Glacial melt is accelerating in Western Canada.
Long-term ecological impacts of diversion are unpredictable.
The argument is not simply nationalist — it’s precautionary.
The Infrastructure Reality
Large-scale water transfers from Canada to the U.S. Southwest would require:
Thousands of miles of pipeline or canal systems
Massive pumping energy requirements
Multibillion-dollar capital investment
Complex environmental approvals
No such project is currently under construction or formally approved.
Policy think tanks have studied water diversion concepts for decades, but they remain economically and politically contentious.
The Philosophical Divide
At the heart of the controversy is a deeper debate:
Is water an economic asset that can be traded like oil or gas?
Or is it a protected public trust insulated from market forces?
In the United States, market-based allocation of water resources is more common. In Canada, water governance is more closely tied to public stewardship and provincial authority.
That philosophical difference is now colliding with climate pressure.
What This Means Geopolitically
Despite heated rhetoric, this is not a military standoff. It is a policy divergence amplified by climate stress.
Still, the symbolism matters.
For decades, U.S.–Canada relations have been defined by:
Deep integration
Predictable cooperation
Quiet dispute resolution
Public disagreement over water — a resource fundamental to survival — marks a notable escalation in tone, if not yet in formal policy.
Experts warn that as climate change intensifies:
Water diplomacy will become as important as energy diplomacy.
Resource security will increasingly shape alliances.
Infrastructure vulnerability will redefine leverage.
The Path Forward
Realistically, any future cooperation would likely take the form of:
Joint conservation initiatives
Shared basin management
Technology exchange (desalination, recycling, storage)
Climate adaptation coordination
Large-scale bulk water transfers remain politically radioactive in Canada and economically complex in the United States.
For now, Carney’s message is clear:
Canada’s water is not for sale.
And Washington has not formally moved beyond rhetoric.
The Bigger Picture
This episode highlights a larger truth:
In the 21st century, water — not oil — may become the defining strategic resource.
But unlike oil, water is immovable geography. It is tied to ecosystems, borders, and long-term sustainability.
How the United States and Canada manage water cooperation in a warming climate will signal whether resource stress leads to confrontation — or innovation.
