Trump ‘Cancelling’ Biden Executive Orders Signed by Autopen Sparks Controversy
Former President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he would be cancelling executive orders that were signed by President Joe Biden using an autopen. The move immediately stirred political debate and renewed scrutiny of the autopen practice, which has been employed by presidents for decades.
Like many modern presidents, including Trump himself, Biden occasionally used an autopen to sign official documents, particularly when he was traveling or unavailable to sign in person. Republicans have argued that the autopen was exploited by aides to bypass direct presidential oversight, suggesting that the system was used to shield Biden, whom some have publicly described as mentally declining, from accountability.
On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump issued a dramatic statement, declaring: “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. I am hereby cancelling all Executive Orders, and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden, because the people who operated the Autopen did so illegally.”
Biden’s team did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding Trump’s announcement. In the past, the former president has strongly rejected claims that his administration improperly relied on autopen signatures. In June, he emphasized: “Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”
The public record does not include a comprehensive tally of how many documents were signed by autopen during Biden’s time in office. The technology itself is not new: President Barack Obama was the first to use an autopen to sign pardons while on vacation, establishing a precedent for its use in urgent or time-sensitive situations. Biden’s use of the autopen has been similarly pragmatic. For example, CNN reported in 2024 that Biden employed the device to sign a funding extension for federal aviation programs, ensuring continuity of government operations while he was traveling on the West Coast.
The recent announcement also comes amid ongoing Republican scrutiny of executive actions taken during Biden’s presidency. Last month, House Republicans issued a statement claiming that executive orders signed via autopen without “proper, corresponding, contemporaneous, written approval traceable to the president’s own consent” should be considered void. They urged the Department of Justice to investigate, framing the issue as a potential violation of constitutional procedures for executive authority.
Trump’s Truth Social post expanded on this critique, asserting: “Joe Biden was not involved in the Autopen process and, if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury.” While perjury involves knowingly lying under oath, Biden has never publicly testified under oath regarding his use of the autopen. Previously, he defended the practice in interviews, stressing that it is a routine administrative tool that facilitates governance without undermining presidential authority.
The debate over the autopen raises larger questions about presidential powers and the balance between expedience and accountability. Supporters argue that the device allows presidents to fulfill urgent administrative duties while traveling or handling multiple crises. Critics, however, see it as a potential loophole that could allow aides or bureaucrats to exercise authority without the president’s direct input.
Trump’s decision to “cancel” executive orders signed by autopen has no immediate legal precedent. While presidents can rescind or modify executive orders issued by predecessors, doing so based on the method of signing rather than the substance of the order is unusual. Constitutional scholars note that executive power resides in the presidency itself, and there is no legal framework explicitly invalidating actions signed with the autopen if the president authorized them.
Legal experts also emphasize that the autopen is merely a technical mechanism, not a substitute for presidential intent. “The courts would likely treat an order signed by autopen the same as one signed in person, provided there is evidence that the president approved the content,” said a constitutional law scholar. The key issue, they note, is whether the president intended to enact the order, not the physical act of signing.
Historically, autopen use has been common during emergencies or when the president is away from Washington. President Ronald Reagan occasionally used the device for routine approvals, and it has become a standard tool for handling high-volume administrative tasks. The technology allows for timely action, such as extending funding deadlines, signing proclamations, or approving minor executive adjustments that cannot wait for in-person signatures.
The political implications of Trump’s announcement are significant. It positions him as challenging the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency in a very public way, appealing to a base that has repeatedly questioned Biden’s fitness for office. At the same time, the move risks being dismissed as symbolic or politically motivated rather than grounded in constitutional principle. Analysts note that the Trump administration’s approach to executive authority has historically emphasized bold, high-profile gestures designed to make headlines and shape public perception.
Democrats, for their part, argue that Trump’s cancellation claim is largely performative. They emphasize that the autopen has been used routinely and legally, and that executive authority rests with the sitting president regardless of the physical signature. A Democratic strategist commented: “This is a stunt designed to delegitimize the Biden presidency. The autopen is nothing new, and it does not undermine the authority or decision-making power of the president.”
The controversy also highlights broader concerns about how technology interacts with governance. Autopens, electronic signatures, and remote approvals have become increasingly important in a digital and fast-moving world. While critics may see these tools as weakening accountability, proponents argue they are essential for efficiency, especially when presidents have demanding travel schedules or need to respond to emergencies quickly.
Beyond the immediate political drama, the autopen debate raises practical questions about presidential workflow. Modern presidents face hundreds, if not thousands, of documents daily. Without delegation or tools like the autopen, there could be delays in implementing policies, approving funding, or issuing necessary executive actions. The device allows presidents to maintain oversight while minimizing bottlenecks, ensuring that government functions continue smoothly.
Trump’s framing of the issue also taps into a longstanding narrative within Republican circles, portraying Biden as incapable of independently handling presidential duties. By emphasizing the percentage of executive orders allegedly signed via autopen, Trump seeks to cast doubt on Biden’s active role in governance. Observers note, however, that without official records specifying how many orders were signed using the autopen, such claims are difficult to verify.
The announcement underscores the continuing politicization of executive procedures. While the autopen has historically been a technical matter rather than a partisan one, it has become a focal point in the ongoing battle over presidential legitimacy. Scholars warn that turning administrative tools into political weapons could set concerning precedents, potentially undermining public trust in government processes.
Looking ahead, Trump’s claim may prompt congressional committees and legal experts to examine the autopen practice more closely, although courts are unlikely to invalidate executive actions solely on the basis of the signing method. Instead, the issue may serve as a political talking point, reinforcing narratives about presidential competence and executive authority rather than creating immediate legal consequences.
For now, Biden’s administration appears to be taking a measured approach, emphasizing that executive actions signed via autopen remain fully legitimate and consistent with established practice. As the debate continues, the autopen has emerged as a symbol of both modern governance and political contention—a small piece of technology with outsized implications in the current polarized environment.
In conclusion, Trump’s declaration to cancel Biden executive orders signed via autopen has reignited a discussion about presidential authority, technology in governance, and the boundaries of political rhetoric. While autopens are legally recognized tools used for decades, the political framing by Trump underscores the intense scrutiny and polarization surrounding every aspect of presidential administration. Whether this move will have lasting impact or remain largely symbolic remains to be seen, but it has certainly ensured that the autopen will be in the national spotlight for the foreseeable future.
