American politics just got a lot more heated: President Donald Trump says he is throwing out every single order that former President Joe Biden approved with the help of an autopen, a device that mechanically reproduces a person’s signature. And this is the part most people miss: he is not just criticizing the practice—he is declaring those documents dead on arrival.
Trump announced on Friday that any document Biden authorized using an autopen "is hereby terminated" and, in his view, no longer has any legal effect. In other words, if Biden’s name was added by machine instead of by hand, Trump is saying that order is now cancelled and should not be treated as valid. But here’s where it gets controversial: presidents of both parties have used autopens for years, and past legal opinions have said that doing so can be perfectly lawful.
Trump went even further, saying he is cancelling all executive orders and any other official actions that Biden did not personally sign himself. He argued that the people who operated the autopen did so illegally and claimed that Biden was not actually involved in that process. Trump even warned that if Biden insists he was involved, Trump believes that could open Biden up to perjury charges—essentially accusing him of lying under oath if he were to testify to the contrary. That framing is likely to deepen partisan divides, because it turns a technical signing issue into a question of criminal responsibility.
During his time in office, Biden issued 162 executive orders, according to public records that track presidential directives. It is not publicly clear how many of those involved an autopen, and presidents routinely undo some of their predecessors’ orders when they take office. Trump, now in his second term, has already revoked a significant number of Biden’s directives, almost 70 in the early days of his new term and nearly 20 more in mid-March, targeting actions his team describes as harmful or misguided. Trump’s new move about autopen-signed documents adds another sweeping layer to those reversals.
Earlier this year, Trump also directed officials to investigate how the Biden White House used the autopen for presidential documents such as pardons. He alleged there was a broader "conspiracy" to misuse the power of the presidential signature, suggesting the technology was being used to hide what he portrays as Biden’s declining cognitive abilities. That claim taps into one of the most politically charged narratives about Biden’s presidency: whether he was fully in control of key decisions, or overly dependent on staff.
Biden has strongly rejected those accusations, calling Trump’s claims a diversion from more serious issues. In a statement in July, Biden emphasized that he personally made the decisions behind pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations issued during his time in office. From Biden’s perspective, the suggestion that he was not actually in charge of those choices is not just wrong—it is, in his words, absurd and false. This sets up a direct clash of credibility: Trump publicly questioning Biden’s involvement, and Biden firmly asserting his own authority over his record.
House Republicans added fuel to the debate by releasing a report last month scrutinizing Biden’s use of the autopen. The document raised concerns and criticisms but stopped short of presenting definitive proof that Biden’s aides secretly signed laws or major directives without his knowledge. That lack of clear evidence leaves room for sharp disagreement: critics argue the practice looks suspicious, while defenders say the report itself shows there is no solid basis for claiming a hidden scheme.
It’s important to remember that autopens are not new to the presidency. For decades, presidents have relied on them to sign certain documents, especially when time, logistics, or security concerns made it difficult to sign in person. Back in 2005, for example, the Justice Department under President George W. Bush concluded that a president may legally use an autopen to sign bills into law—essentially saying that what matters is the president’s intent and authorization, not whether the pen was physically in their hand. That long-standing view is exactly why Trump’s sweeping rejection of autopen-signed Biden orders is so likely to spark intense legal and political debates.
Trump himself has acknowledged that he has also used an autopen, but he has drawn a sharp distinction by saying he did so only for what he calls "very unimportant papers." By framing his own use as limited to minor matters, he attempts to contrast his approach with what he portrays as Biden’s broader and more serious reliance on the device. That raises an obvious question: who gets to decide when an autopen is appropriate, and at what point does a routine administrative tool become, as Trump alleges, a sign of deeper problems?
So what do you think: is Trump right to void any order Biden signed by autopen, or is this a political power move dressed up as a legal argument? Do you see the use of an autopen for major decisions as a practical necessity in a modern presidency, or as a dangerous shortcut that weakens accountability? And here’s where it could get really divisive: if future presidents of either party rely on autopens in the same way, should their actions also be questioned—or is this backlash only happening because it’s Biden and Trump? Share where you stand—do you agree, disagree, or see this as a troubling precedent for how presidents challenge each other’s authority?
