Washington, D.C. – President Donald Trump has announced that any executive actions or documents signed by former president Joe Biden using an autopen are “null and void,” claiming that about 92 % of Biden’s orders were signed with the device and threatening to charge Biden with perjury if he insists he authorized their use.
Trump’s directive, posted on his social‑media platform on 28 November, states that “anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden” should be terminated. He did not specify what legal authority he would use to cancel the orders and acknowledged earlier this year that he has used an autopen himself for “very unimportant papers” (ca.news.yahoo.com).
Trump’s statement came one month after the Republican‑led House Oversight Committee released a report alleging that Biden’s aides and physician concealed his mental decline and misused an autopen to sign executive actions without his direct authorization (oversight.house.gov). Committee chair James Comer said senior staff exercised presidential authority and that any actions signed by an autopen should be considered invalid.
The report also claimed there were irregularities in pardons and commutations signed during the final days of Biden’s presidency and referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice for review. Democrats on the panel disputed the findings and questioned the evidence behind them.
Legal experts note that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded in 2005 that a president “need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature” and may direct a subordinate to sign a bill by autopen (justice.gov). That opinion has been cited to defend the legality of autopen use.
Biden has said that he personally approved all of his administration’s executive actions and called suggestions that he did not “ridiculous and false”. It remains unclear how Trump’s announcement might be implemented or whether it will face legal challenges, leaving the validity of autopen‑signed orders at the center of a political and constitutional dispute.
About the Author
