The Question of the Autopen: Legal Argument, By Charles Taylor (Florida)

Donald Trump has claimed that certain decisions made by Joe Biden, specifically pardons issued in the final days of Biden's presidency, are invalid because they were allegedly signed using an autopen—a device that mechanically replicates a signature—rather than by Biden's own hand. Trump's argument centres on two main points: first, that the use of an autopen inherently undermines the legitimacy of the pardons, and second, that Biden was unaware of or did not personally approve these actions, implying someone else misused the autopen on his behalf.

Trump articulated this position in a Truth Social post on March 16, 2025, stating: "The 'Pardons' that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen. In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!" He has particularly targeted pardons granted to members of the House committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, as well as other figures like Hunter Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and General Mark Milley, suggesting these were pre-emptive moves to shield them from future prosecution under his administration.

Trump has further argued that this alleged lack of awareness or direct involvement by Biden renders the pardons illegitimate. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One on March 16, 2025, he said, "It's not my decision—that'll be up to a court—but I would say that they're null and void, because I'm sure Biden didn't have any idea that it was taking place, and somebody was using an autopen to sign off and to give pardons." This claim builds on a narrative, amplified by groups like the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project, that Biden's use of an autopen throughout his presidency indicates a lack of control or mental capacity, with the implication that aides or others may have acted unilaterally.

Trump's Case: The Autopen as a Constitutional and Legal Problem

Donald Trump's lawyers could argue that the Biden administration's use of an autopen to sign legislation, executive orders, or official documents undermines the integrity of the presidential office, violates constitutional intent, and potentially breaches statutory requirements—rendering such actions legally suspect or void. Here's the case they might build:

1. Constitutional Duty Requires Personal Action

The U.S. Constitution vests the president with specific powers—Article II, Section 1 ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President") and Section 3 ("he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"). Trump's team could assert that signing bills into law (Article I, Section 7) or issuing executive orders isn't just ceremonial—it's a deliberate act of executive will, demanding the president's personal hand. An autopen, they'd argue, turns this into a robotic farce, delegating a core duty to a machine.

Angle: Historical intent. The framers didn't envision a proxy—Washington and Adams scratched ink themselves. Biden's autopen (used since at least 2021, per Politico, May 5, 2021) dodges that accountability. If a president's too busy or frail to sign, is he fit to lead?

Precedent: No Supreme Court ruling blesses this—Truman used it sparingly (1947), but modern overuse (Obama, Biden) lacks judicial sanction. Trump's lawyers could call it a "slippery slope" to automation over governance.

2. Legal Validity of Autopen-Signed Documents

Trump's camp could lean on statutory and common law principles requiring a "wet signature" for official acts. While the Uniform Electronic Signatures Act (1999) and E-SIGN Act (2000) legitimise digital signatures in commerce, they don't explicitly cover presidential acts—those are sui generis. Lawyers might argue:

Claim: Legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act (autopen-signed by Biden, December 2021) or executive orders needs a human signature to bind—otherwise, it's a legal nullity. The Government Printing Office Act (44 U.S.C. § 701) implies physical authentication for official docs; a machine's mark might not cut it.

Case Law: Reed v. Allen (1933) stressed intent in signatures—autopen's pre-programmed, not intentional. If challenged, courts could void autopen laws—chaos Trump could exploit.

3. Fraud and Accountability Risks

Here's the Trump flair: call it a "Deep State scam." Lawyers could argue autopen use opens a Pandora's box—staffers could slap Biden's robo-signature on anything, bypassing his knowledge or consent. No proof Biden's team did this, but the optics are juicy:

Pitch: "Who's really running the show? Sleepy Joe's not signing—his handlers are." If a forged bill passes (say, a $2 trillion spending hike), who's liable? The Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. § 3101) demands presidential oversight—autopen muddies that.

4. Political and Practical Fallout

Trump's team could stretch it to governance itself—autopen signals a president too detached or infirm to lead, eroding public trust. Article II's "faithful execution" isn't just law; it's optics. If Biden's too shaky to sign (he's 82 in 2025), Trump's lawyers could whisper 25th Amendment vibes—incapacity without admitting it.

Jab: "I signed every MAGA order myself—Biden's got a robot doing his job." It's not legal meat, but it's red meat for the MAGA base.

Trump's Playbook Argument

Core: Autopen violates constitutional intent (personal duty), risks legal nullity (unsigned laws), and invites fraud (unaccountable staff).

Relief Sought: Invalidate autopen-signed acts—say, Biden's 2021 Infrastructure Bill—or force a Supreme Court fight. Even if it flops, it's a PR win: "I'm exposing the swamp's tricks."

Evidence: Lean on Biden's known use, contrast with Trump's "hands-on" style, and cite near-misses (e.g., Obama's 2011 autopen veto scare, ruled moot).

Why It Matters

This isn't just nitpicking—it's a wedge. If Trump's lawyers land a punch, they could unravel Biden-era laws, spark a constitutional crisis, or at least muddy trust in government.

All in all, a good time will be had by all!

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/17/us/autopen-pardons-biden-trump.html