Autopen Explained: Why Trump Is Targeting Biden’s Signatures — What’s Legal and What’s Not

Donald Trump has renewed claims that many of President Joe Biden’s actions are invalid because they were signed with an autopen — a mechanical device that reproduces a person’s signature in real ink. The autopen has been used by presidents for decades to handle high volumes of routine paperwork, and its use is governed by longstanding legal guidance.

What is an autopen? The autopen is a machine that replicates a person’s signature for use on documents where the signer has authorized the device. An early version of the concept was patented in the United States in 1803, and modern autopens allow staffs to apply an authorized signature consistently and quickly when a president is not available to sign each item in person.

Legal standing

In 2005 the Justice Department explained that a president does not need to physically affix a signature to a bill for it to become law: "the president may sign a bill … by directing a subordinate to affix the president’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen."

That opinion and historical practice mean an autopen signature can have the same legal effect as a handwritten one when used with the president’s authorization.

Historical use Presidential autopen use dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who used an early iteration of the device. Other presidents reported to have used autopens include John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson (who allowed photographs of the device in the White House), Gerald Ford and, more recently, Barack Obama, who used an autopen to sign legislation while overseas. Donald Trump has also acknowledged using an autopen for "very unimportant papers."

What Trump is claiming Trump has repeatedly suggested that documents signed by autopen — including executive orders and pardons — are invalid. On social media he asserted, without evidence, that roughly "92%" of Biden’s executive orders are invalid because the autopen was operated by others. Republican-led reports and pro-Trump groups have amplified that message.

What evidence shows Reports produced by Republican oversight panels and allied conservative groups have alleged misuse but generally have not provided concrete evidence that aides signed policy documents without the president’s knowledge or direction. Democrats on these committees called some of those reports a "sham." There is no public evidence that vast swaths of Biden’s official acts are legally void because of autopen use.

Limits to undoing past actions A new president can rescind or modify many executive orders issued by a predecessor, and doing so is a routine part of presidential transitions. However, legal scholars note important limits: notably, a president generally cannot revoke another president’s pardons. Other actions may also be protected or subject to legal and practical constraints, depending on the statute or circumstance.

Context and politics The autopen controversy has become a political flashpoint. Conservative groups tied to the Trump camp have pushed the narrative that control of the autopen equates to control of the presidency, a claim presented without independent proof. The argument has also been used to raise broader questions about presidential capacity — a recurring theme from Trump’s critics and opponents.

President Biden has defended the use of the autopen, saying he directed staff to use it for clemency warrants because the process involved "a whole lot of people" and that he personally made the decisions. Meanwhile, questions about how a successor would legally overturn items signed by autopen remain complex and, in many cases, limited by constitutional and statutory constraints.

Lucy Campbell contributed reporting.