President Donald Trump announced Friday that he will nullify all executive orders signed using an autopen device during the Biden administration, claiming such signatures lack legal validity.
Trump made the declaration via social media, asserting that approximately 92 percent of documents signed during the previous administration used the automated signature device rather than direct personal signature by the former president.
“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,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The president claimed that individuals operating the autopen device did so illegally and that Biden himself was not involved in the autopen process. Trump threatened perjury charges against the former president if he contradicts this characterization.
“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,” Trump stated. “Joe Biden was not involved in the Autopen process and, if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury.”
Biden has consistently denied any impropriety during his administration, stating publicly that he made all presidential decisions during his tenure. The former president has rejected suggestions that staff members acted without his knowledge or authorization.
Trump’s social media statement included additional commentary characterizing Biden’s staff as having effectively controlled presidential decision-making. “The Radical Left Lunatics circling Biden around the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office took the Presidency away from him,” Trump wrote.
Autopens are mechanical devices that replicate a person’s signature, commonly used by high-volume signers including corporate executives, celebrities, and government officials. Presidents have employed autopens for decades to sign routine documents, photographs, and ceremonial items while reserving personal signatures for legally significant documents.
The legal questions surrounding autopen use by presidents have generated limited judicial scrutiny historically. Courts have generally accepted that presidents may delegate signature authority for routine matters, though specific legal requirements vary depending on document type and statutory provisions.
Trump has focused attention on Biden’s autopen use since March, when he suggested the device’s employment demonstrated that the former president was not in charge of White House operations. He characterized actions taken using autopen signatures as “null and void” at that time.
The president has ordered an investigation into Biden’s autopen practices, explicitly connecting the inquiry to questions about the former president’s cognitive capabilities. This investigation represents part of broader efforts to scrutinize the previous administration’s operations and decision-making processes.
The declaration raises complex legal questions about presidential authority to retroactively invalidate predecessor actions. While incoming presidents routinely reverse or modify previous executive orders through new orders, wholesale invalidation based on signature method represents an unusual approach.
Executive orders carry the force of law and direct federal agencies how to implement policies within existing statutory frameworks. Agencies have already implemented many Biden-era executive orders, creating regulations, programs, and operational changes based on those directives.
Nullifying executed orders could create administrative chaos as agencies determine which policies to continue, which to reverse, and how to handle actions already taken under now-challenged authorities. Contractors, grant recipients, and regulated entities operating under Biden-era orders face uncertainty about their legal standing.
Legal challenges to Trump’s declaration appear likely. Former Biden administration officials, advocacy organizations, or affected parties may seek court injunctions blocking the mass cancellation. Courts would need to resolve whether autopen signatures satisfy legal requirements for executive orders and whether a successor president can invalidate orders based solely on signature method.
Constitutional scholars note that Article II vests executive power in the president personally but does not specify signature requirements for all presidential actions. The Constitution explicitly requires the president’s signature only for bills becoming law, leaving other signature requirements to statutory provisions and historical practice.
Some federal statutes specifically address signature requirements, while others remain silent. Where statutes require the president’s signature without specifying method, courts would need to determine whether autopen satisfies that requirement or whether physical personal signature is mandatory.
Previous presidents including Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton used autopens for various purposes. The devices allow presidents to efficiently handle high volumes of signing requests for items like official photographs, letters to supporters, and routine correspondence.
The distinction between ceremonial signatures and legally binding ones has traditionally governed autopen use. Presidents typically reserve personal signatures for documents with legal significance while using autopens for volume items. Whether executive orders fall into the category requiring personal signatures remains a question Trump’s action forces into legal focus.
Trump’s 92 percent figure for Biden’s autopen use has not been independently verified. The calculation method, data sources, and document categories included in this estimate remain unclear from the president’s statement.
Biden administration alumni would likely contest characterizations that staff operated autopens without presidential knowledge or authorization. Standard White House procedures involve presidential review and approval of executive orders before any signature, whether personal or automated.
The threatened perjury charges against Biden represent an escalation of rhetoric but face substantial legal hurdles. Perjury requires false statements made under oath in legal proceedings, and presidential statements about administrative procedures would not typically meet this threshold without specific sworn testimony.
The declaration represents part of broader efforts by the Trump administration to reverse Biden-era policies across multiple domains including immigration, environmental regulation, energy policy, and social programs. The autopen invalidation strategy, if successful, would provide a mechanism for wholesale policy reversal without addressing each order individually.
