The Autopen’s History, Presidential Use, and the Legal Validity of Joe Biden’s “Signed” Documents

The controversy surrounding the use of the autopen—a device that mechanically replicates signatures—has reignited, with former President Joe Biden at the center of scrutiny. Critics, including President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, have raised questions about the legitimacy of Biden’s autopen-signed documents, particularly executive orders and pardons issued during his term. This update explores the autopen’s development, its limited use by previous presidents, and builds a well-reasoned case questioning the legal validity of Biden’s autopen-signed documents, focusing on constitutional and procedural concerns.

Jim Davis @ American Thinker: Speaker Mike Johnson reveals why the Autopen scandal is a big deal

An interview with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) reveals just one of many examples where Joe the Vegetable didn’t even read the documents that bear his purported signature:

MIKE JOHNSON: “Sir, why did you pause LNG exports? … Liquified natural gas is in great demand by our [European] allies. Why would you do that? Because you understand, we just talked about Ukraine. You understand, you’re fueling Vladimir Putin’s war machine, because they got to get their gas from him, you know.”

And he looked at me, stunned, and he said, “I didn’t do that.”

And I said, “Mr. President, yes you did. It was an executive order, like three weeks ago.”

“I didn’t do that.” And he’s arguing with me.

I said, ”Mr. President, respectfully, can I, could I go out here and ask your secretary to print it out? We’ll read it together. You definitely did that.”

… He said, “No, no. You misunderstand.” He said, “What I did is I signed this thing to —we’re going to conduct a study on the effects of LNG.”

I said, “No, you’re not, sir. You paused it. … This is doing massive damage to our economy, national security …” It occurred to me, Barry, he was not lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he had signed.

And I walked out of that meeting with fear and loathing. Because I thought, we’re in serious trouble. Who is running the country? Like, I don’t know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn’t know.

Development of the Autopen

The autopen’s origins trace back to 1803 when British-American inventor John Isaac Hawkins patented the polygraph, a precursor to modern autopens. Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. president, adopted this machine, which used a mechanical arm to replicate a signature. At the same time, the user wrote with a linked pen, calling it “the finest invention of the present age.” Jefferson used it extensively to duplicate letters, marking the first known presidential use of a signature-replicating device. The technology evolved over the centuries, but the first commercially successful autopen emerged in 1942, developed by Robert M. De Shazo Jr. in response to a U.S. Navy request. De Shazo’s machine used a motorized stylus to trace a signature matrix, driving an arm that could hold any writing instrument to produce a near-identical signature with even pressure—a telltale sign distinguishing it from a human hand. By the mid-20th century, autopens became a staple in Washington, D.C., with De Shazo estimating over 500 in use across government offices by the 1960s, including Congress, the Senate, and the Executive Branch.

Limited Use by Previous Presidents

Presidents have used autopens for decades, primarily for low-stakes tasks like signing correspondence or autographs, but their application to legally binding documents has been rare and often controversial. Harry Truman was the first to use an autopen for government work, though specifics are sparse—likely for routine letters rather than legislation. John F. Kennedy also employed it, but again, mostly for non-binding items like photos or constituent mail. The first documented use of an autopen to sign legislation came under Barack Obama in 2011, when he authorized its use while in France to sign an extension of the Patriot Act, just hours before its provisions were set to expire. Obama used it again in 2013 to sign an extension of the Bush tax cuts while vacationing in Hawaii, avoiding the need to fly the bill to him overnight. These instances ignited debate among Republican leaders, who argued that an autopen might not meet the constitutional requirement for a president to “sign” a bill into law under Article I, Section 7, especially since, in most legal settings, having another person—or a machine like an autopen—execute someone else’s signature on a document is not technically legal without explicit authorization. However, a 2005 Department of Justice (DOJ) memo from George W. Bush’s administration countered this, stating a president need not physically sign a bill if they direct a subordinate to affix their signature—a ruling Obama relied on, though Bush himself avoided the device, choosing to fly back for emergency signings.

Joe Biden’s administration also used the autopen, though reportedly sparingly. A May 2024 CNN report noted Biden signed a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding extension via autopen while in San Francisco, but the White House often went to great lengths to ensure physical signings—like flying bills to South Korea in 2022 for a $40 billion Ukraine aid package. Despite this, the Oversight Project, an arm of the Heritage Foundation, claims that most of Biden’s executive orders and pardons from 2021 to 2024 bore identical autopen signatures, contrasting with a different, possibly handwritten signature on his 2024 withdrawal letter.

The Case Against the Legal Validity of Biden’s Autopen-Signed Documents

The controversy over Biden’s autopen use centers on executive orders and pardons, including high-profile preemptive pardons issued on January 19, 2025, for the January 6 Committee, Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, Hunter Biden, and Jerry Lundergan. Trump has declared these pardons “void” on Truth Social, alleging they were signed by autopen without Biden’s knowledge, a claim echoed by House Speaker Mike Johnson. Johnson, cited above, recounted Biden’s apparent unawareness of signing an executive order pausing liquefied natural gas exports, suggesting unelected staff may have controlled the autopen. This raises a critical question: Are Biden’s autopen-signed documents legally valid?

Kaelan Deese, Washington Examiner: Were Biden’s ‘autopen’ pardons legal? Trump says question should be ‘up to a court’

President Donald Trump suggested Monday that the legality of autopen-signed pardons should be decided by the courts, questioning whether former President Joe Biden’s final clemency orders, including controversial preemptive pardons, are valid.

In a Truth Social post, Trump said Biden’s pardons, including those granted to members of the House Jan. 6 Select Committee such as former Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), along with former White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, were “VOID” because they were allegedly signed using an autopen, a mechanical device that replicates a signature.

“The ‘Pardons’ that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen,” Trump wrote.

He further alleged that Biden was unaware of the pardons, suggesting that those who executed them could be guilty of criminal conduct.

Trump’s claims followed a report by the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, which alleged that Biden used an autopen to sign “nearly every document we could find” during his presidency.

“We gathered every document we could find with Biden’s signature over the course of his presidency. All used the same autopen signature except for the announcement that the former President was dropping out of the race last year,” the Oversight Project said.

Constitutional Concerns: Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to sign a bill for it to become law, but it does not specify that the signature must be handwritten. Article II, Section 2 grants broad pardon powers, with no explicit requirement for a written signature—courts, like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, have ruled that the Constitution imposes “no such limitation” on pardons. The 2005 DOJ memo further supports this, stating a president can direct a subordinate to affix their signature, as Obama did. However, a 2011 Syracuse University College of Law article by Terry L. Turnipseed argues that historical legal precedent, dating back to English and American common law, requires the principal (the president) to be present when a proxy signature is affixed for high-value transactions like legislation. Obama’s 2011 autopen signing of the Patriot Act, authorized by phone from France, violated this “presence requirement,” Turnipseed contends, rendering it unconstitutional. Biden’s autopen use, if done without his direct oversight, could face the same challenge—especially if he was not present or aware, as Johnson’s anecdote suggests.

Procedural and Cognitive Issues: The Oversight Project’s findings, amplified by Johnson, allege that Biden’s identical autopen signatures on nearly all documents indicate a lack of personal involvement, raising questions about who controlled the autopen and what checks were in place. If Biden, amid documented concerns about his cognitive decline (e.g., public gaffes, frailty during 2024 debates), was not fully aware of what he was authorizing, this undermines the intent behind his constitutional duties. The DOJ’s 2005 memo allows a subordinate to affix a signature, but only if the president has decided to approve the document. If unelected staff used the autopen without Biden’s explicit direction—as Missouri AG Andrew Bailey and Johnson suggest—those actions could be void. For pardons, the lack of a constitutional writing requirement might protect them, but executive orders, which often carry the force of law, may not survive scrutiny if Biden’s intent is unproven.

Joe Biden’s White House Staff Secretary Neera Tanden has allegedly been outed as the one using Biden’s autopen to sign important documents including pardons without Biden knowing about them. Will this cause the pardons to be void? pic.twitter.com/6GD4aosjlF

— • ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ ™ • (@4Mischief) March 19, 2025

Legal Precedent and Practical Implications: Trump’s claim that Biden’s pardons are “null and void” lacks legal standing via a Truth Social post, as noted by MSN, but he could challenge them through executive action or court filings—a move legal experts predict would fail, given the DOJ’s stance and constitutional flexibility. However, the presence requirement of Turnipseed highlights has never been tested in court, leaving a gray area. If Biden’s autopen use bypassed his direct involvement, a court could rule that documents like executive orders are invalid, especially if evidence shows he was not mentally capable of authorizing them. This would not apply retroactively to pardons already accepted, per constitutional norms, but could affect unexecuted orders or future enforcement.

PJ Media – Legal Analysis: Biden’s Autopen Pardons Are ‘Invalid’

Here’s legal analysis from the Oversight Project’s memorandum:

The United States Constitution vests numerous powers in one man and one man alone—the President of the United States. These powers include signing or vetoing bills, signing or vetoing orders, resolutions, or certain legislative votes, nominating and commissioning Officers, and granting reprieves and pardons. In all of these instances, the President’s personal action is required, i.e., he “shall” perform some action. These mandates are exclusive to the President. Therefore, it is well established that the President cannot delegate these decisions to anyone. The President affixing his wet signature not only signifies consent, but is the legally required act.

What happens when the president doesn’t personally sign documents exercising his powers, instead relying on a proxy or autopen to fulfill constitutional duties or issue pardons? And how does this change when the president lacks the mental or physical capacity to perform these duties?

While the president can seek advice, the final decision and responsibility rest with him. Since the nation’s founding, requiring the president’s wet signature on key documents has served as a vital safeguard against fraud and unauthorized authority.

The use of the autopen to affix the President’s signature has been justified by the modern Administrative State through tortured Constitutional interpretation, asking the wrong core questions, and deliberately ignoring contrary authority. Thus, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) in 2005 reversed their longstanding interpretation that had seen bills flown around the world for the President’s wet signature and has opined that the President may even autopen bills. This opinion is wrong. But even that erroneous opinion was clear that “[w]e emphasize that we are not suggesting that the President may delegate the decision to approve and sign a bill, only that, having made this decision, he may direct a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to the bill.” Thus, the Biden Administration’s use of the autopen may well have been contrary even to the most permissive interpretation of the law.

Conclusion

While the autopen itself is not inherently illegal—presidents from Jefferson to Obama have used it, and the DOJ has upheld its constitutionality—the circumstances of Biden’s use raise serious legal questions. The historical presence requirement, combined with concerns over Biden’s awareness and potential staff overreach, suggests that his autopen-signed executive orders may not be valid if he did not personally authorize them. Pardons, however, are likely safe due to the Constitution’s lack of a writing mandate. A court challenge, as Trump has suggested, could clarify this—but until then, the shadow over Biden’s autopen-signed documents persists, fueled by procedural gaps and unanswered questions about who truly held the pen.