In yet another misleading claim on his social media platform Truth Social, President Donald Trump declared that several of former President Joe Biden’s pardons were “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT.” The reason? Trump alleges that Biden used an autopen, a mechanical device that replicates a signature, instead of signing the pardons by hand.
While Trump’s rhetoric continues to rally his base, legal experts and historical precedent say the claim has no legal standing. Here’s a breakdown of the facts.
What Is an Autopen and Has It Been Used Before?
An autopen is a mechanical device that holds a pen and replicates a person’s signature. It has been used for decades by U.S. presidents and government officials. Notably, Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and even Thomas Jefferson used autopen technology or its historical equivalents.
The idea that the use of an autopen delegitimizes presidential acts is not only unprecedented—it’s also legally incorrect.
Did Biden Actually Use an Autopen?
It’s not definitively confirmed whether Biden used an autopen for the pardons in question—those issued to lawmakers who served on the congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack. However, the White House has not denied its use. What’s clear is that even if he did, it doesn’t invalidate the pardons.
The “autopen scandal,” as dubbed by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, sparked a wave of social media commentary. They posted several documents signed using what they claimed was the same autopen signature—adding fuel to Trump’s conspiracy-laced claims.
What Does the Constitution Say About Presidential Pardons?
The U.S. Constitution gives the president the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.” Importantly, it does not specify how that power must be documented. In contrast, Article I of the Constitution explicitly requires the president to sign bills passed by Congress for them to become law—no such requirement exists for pardons.
According to legal experts, including Stanford Law Professor Bernadette Meyler and Michigan State University’s Brian Kalt, the pardon power is broad and does not hinge on whether the president physically signs a document.
Legal and Historical Precedents
- 1929 Memo from the Office of the Solicitor General: A pardon need not carry the president’s autograph, only a certified facsimile.
- 2005 DOJ Opinion: The President may direct a subordinate to affix his signature with an autopen. This guidance was used to justify Obama’s autopen use during a legislative crunch.
- 1869 Federal Court Ruling: Once a pardon is issued, it is final and irrevocable.
- 2024 Ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals (4th Circuit): The Constitution does not limit clemency to written, hand-signed documents.
Trump’s Double Standard
It’s worth noting that Trump himself issued several controversial pardons during his presidency—including for allies involved in the January 6 insurrection. Yet, he never faced scrutiny over the method of his signatures. When asked whether he had ever used an autopen, Trump told reporters, “I never use it,” though he admitted it might be used “to send some young person a letter.”
This double standard raises an important question: Would this issue even be raised if the president were not Biden? Likely not. It underscores how conspiracy theories and procedural nitpicking are often wielded as political weapons, rather than legitimate legal arguments.
Final Verdict
Trump’s claim that Biden’s pardons are invalid because of autopen use is false. There is no legal requirement for a president to hand-sign pardons, and no mechanism in the Constitution to revoke them once issued. Legal experts agree that the use of an autopen—if it even occurred—is irrelevant to the legitimacy of a presidential pardon.
This episode is yet another example of misinformation being deployed for political gain. But when examined under legal scrutiny and constitutional history, Trump’s argument simply doesn’t hold up.