ss Trump asserts that 92% of documents from the Biden era have been “wiped out,” sparking nationwide alarm over legality and legitimacy

Stop scrolling—because this one is the kind of political move that makes you blink twice and ask: did the White House really just try to erase four years of American government with one social media post?

Over the past week, President Donald Trump has detonated a new firestorm by declaring that any official Biden-era document signed using an autopen is “terminated” and “of no further force or effect.” He claims this covers roughly 92% of Biden’s signed actions—executive orders, proclamations, memos, contracts, and even pardons. The message wasn’t subtle. It was a wrecking ball. Sky News+4Reuters+4The Guardian+4

To everyday people, “autopen” might sound like a boring technical footnote. But Trump is trying to turn that footnote into a constitutional erase button. An autopen is a mechanical device that reproduces a signature—used for decades by presidents from both parties when the volume of paperwork is massive. It’s not exotic, not secret, and not new. Legal opinions from the Justice Department and constitutional scholars stress that what matters is presidential intent and authorization, not whether the ink was laid down by hand or machine. factually.co+2Reuters+2

So why is Trump going nuclear over it now?

Because this isn’t really about a pen. It’s about power—and about rewriting the last chapter of American politics like it never happened.

Trump’s Truth Social blast didn’t just say “I disagree with Biden’s policies.” That’s normal politics. What he’s doing is something far more radical: declaring Biden’s presidency functionally illegitimate by suggesting aides “illegally” used the autopen while Biden supposedly wasn’t aware. He even floated the threat that if Biden claims he did approve those signatures, he should face perjury charges. Reuters+3조선일보+3The Independent+3

Let’s be clear about what that implies: a sitting president publicly flirting with criminal prosecution of a former president over a routine signing tool. Legal experts across the spectrum say a president cannot revoke a predecessor’s pardons or void executive actions just by waving at the signature method. Courts would need real proof that Biden didn’t authorize the actions—and so far, Trump hasn’t presented any. Reuters+2The Guardian+2

Still, the political shockwave is real. Trump’s move comes after Biden issued several high-profile pardons near the end of his term, including for family members and political figures—decisions that are now being dragged into Trump’s autopen crusade. thetimes.com+2Reuters+2

Here’s the part that has allies, businesses, and ordinary Americans sweating: if the U.S. president can announce that most of the last administration’s work “doesn’t count,” what happens to stability?

Executive orders aren’t just symbolic. They touch climate rules, healthcare directions, disaster responses, infrastructure priorities, agency operations—things that people and markets plan around. Trump is essentially telling the country, “If I say it’s invalid, it’s invalid.” That kind of governing-by-declaration turns law into sand. Sky News+3thetimes.com+3Reuters+3

And the deeper fear is the precedent. If this theory stands—even politically, even rhetorically—then every new president can claim the last four years were void by attacking procedure instead of debating policy. Democracy becomes a reset button every election. No continuity, no trust, no guardrails. Just vengeance on loop.

That’s why this controversy isn’t dying down. It’s not about whether Trump dislikes Biden’s legacy. It’s about whether any legacy can survive when the next president decides the past was “illegal” simply because he says so.

Right now, the legal consensus is blunt: Trump’s declaration is wildly unlikely to hold up in court. But the political damage—confusion, instability, and the normalization of retroactive revenge—may be the real point.

Because even if the autopen argument collapses, the message has already been sent:

“Nothing you voted for is safe if I don’t like it.”