Breaking: Trump Moves to Void All Biden Executive Orders Signed by Autopen

Trump Moves to Invalidate Biden’s Autopen-Signed Orders: What It Means

On Friday, Donald Trump announced via social media that he intends to “throw out” all executive orders issued under Joe Biden that were — in Trump’s view — signed using an autopen. According to Trump, the majority of Biden’s directives were processed this way, which he claims undermines their legitimacy.

In a post on his platform, Trump declared:

“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.”

He went further, threatening that former President Biden could face perjury charges if he asserts that his autopen-signed orders were hand-approved.

What Is the Autopen — and Why Is It Controversial?

An autopen is a mechanical device that replicates a person’s signature — often used by high-ranking officials when hundreds of documents require signing. Its purpose is primarily practical: to handle volume without requiring the principal (e.g. the President) to sign each document by hand.

Historically, autopens have been used by multiple U.S. presidents — dating back to the era of Thomas Jefferson. The practice is not new or unique to any recent administration.

But Trump's latest declaration frames the use of autopen under Biden not as a mere convenience — but as evidence of illegitimacy and possible hidden power wielded by unnamed aides.

Trump’s Rationale: Why He Says It’s Necessary

Trump claims that using autopen without “specific presidential approval” is illegal, implying that many of Biden’s executive orders were signed without his direct consent.
He argues that the majority of Biden-era orders (about 92%) were autopen-signed, and therefore invalid.
Trump frames the move as a restoration of legitimacy — treating autopen-signed documents as null and void, unless personally signed by Biden himself.

He also criticized Biden’s age and alleged cognitive decline — a recurring theme in Trump’s attacks — suggesting that autopen usage concealed Biden’s lack of direct involvement.

Legal Experts Push Back: Autopen Use Is Long-Standing — and Legal

Legal scholars and watchdog fact-checkers have been quick to challenge Trump’s move. Here’s what they point out:

The U.S. Constitution does not require the President to personally write or sign executive orders, bills, or pardons by hand. Mechanically affixing a signature — including via autopen — has long been accepted.
A 2005 memo from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel reaffirmed that autopen use is within presidential powers, including for signing legislation.
Official archives such as the Federal Register — which publishes presidential documents — rely on a stored sample signature, not a new handwritten image for each document. That standard practice means identical signatures across many documents is expected, and not proof of misuse.

In short: while claims that Biden used the autopen are plausible, they do not render the documents invalid. As far back as the 19th century, the courts and legal tradition have recognized that a president’s signature — even mechanical — suffices for official actions.

One fact-check from 2025 concluded: even if the autopen was used, the documents remain legally binding. There’s no constitutional mechanism to invalidate pardons, legislation, or orders solely due to mechanical signing.

What This Could Mean — and Why It Matters

If Trump's declaration stands, it could create widespread legal and administrative chaos:

Void announcements: Hundreds — perhaps thousands — of executive orders, directives, or pardons could be treated as null, leading to uncertainty about standing laws and prior actions.
Judicial challenges: Courts may see a surge of lawsuits from individuals or entities affected by orders Trump seeks to void. Judges will have to rule on whether “autopen” invalidation is lawful — a major constitutional question.
Precedent for future presidents: Accepting this logic could establish a new and problematic standard — that every directive must be hand-signed by the president personally. Given modern governance demands, that’s likely impractical.
Political weaponization: The move could set a dangerous precedent where any future administration seeks to delegitimize predecessor actions by questioning signature method, rather than substance.

All of this amid deeper partisan divisions. Trump’s claims also play into broader narratives about Biden’s age, capacity, and legitimacy — subjects already heavily politicized.

Rebuttals and Institutional Responses

The National Archives — responsible for the Federal Register — has noted that the identical signatures seen across executive documents reflect a standard stored-graphic process, not evidence of autopen misuse.
Legal experts emphasize that autopen has been used by numerous presidents over centuries, including not just Biden but predecessors decades long — without raising valid questions about legitimacy.
Constitutional precedent supports that presidential powers — executive orders, pardons, legislation — remain valid once properly issued, regardless of the mode of signing.

These rebuttals suggest that Trump’s effort may face steep legal obstacles if challenged in court.

What Comes Next — and What to Watch For

Possible lawsuits: Lawyers representing affected parties — individuals, businesses, nonprofits — may challenge any attempt to rescind executive orders or pardons based solely on autopen signature claims.
Congressional scrutiny: Some lawmakers may hold hearings to examine whether autopen usage undermines executive legitimacy — potentially seeking new laws or safeguards.
Impact on governance: In the short term, uncertainty over which policies remain valid could create chaos across federal agencies, especially those involved in immigration, pardons, foreign policy, and regulatory enforcement.
Political fallout: The move may deepen partisan divides, with supporters viewing it as corrective — and critics warning of a dangerous precedent of “cancelling” predecessor actions based on signature technicalities.

Final Thoughts: Autopen Dispute or Political Gambit?

At its core, the dispute touches on more than the signature method — it strikes at who wields executive power, and whether modern tools (like autopens) compromise accountability. On one hand, autopen devices are practical tools in a world of voluminous paperwork. On the other, Trump’s latest move frames their use as evidence of hidden power, unaccountability, and potential illegitimacy.

The legal consensus, historical precedent, and constitutional practice strongly favor the view that autopen-signed orders remain valid — regardless of who physically pressed the pen. Still, the real verdict may come from judges and courts faced with decisions on whether these documents can be retroactively nullified.

What is undeniable, however, is that this challenge — once theoretical — is now real, and unfolding quickly. The stakes are high: executive orders, legislation, pardons — millions of Americans may soon face uncertainty depending on how courts respond.