Biden’s Autopen Controversy Raises Questions About Presidential Authority

By Asher, Contributor

Washington, D.C. – A growing controversy surrounding former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen to sign official documents, including high-profile pardons, has sparked debate over the legitimacy and oversight of his administration’s actions. As of March 18, 2025, critics, including President Donald Trump, have seized on reports suggesting that Biden relied heavily on the mechanical signature device, questioning whether he was fully aware of the documents being signed in his name.

The autopen, a machine that replicates a person’s signature with ink, has been used by U.S. presidents for decades to manage the overwhelming volume of paperwork crossing their desks. While its use is not new—former President Barack Obama famously employed it to sign legislation like the Patriot Act extension in 2011 while abroad—recent scrutiny has focused on the extent to which Biden’s administration leaned on the device. A report from the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, released earlier this month, claimed that a majority of Biden’s official documents, including controversial pardons issued in his final days in office, bore autopen signatures rather than his own hand.

Among the most contentious actions were preemptive pardons granted on January 19, 2025, Biden’s last full day as president. These included clemency for members of the House Select Committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, as well as other political figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci. President Trump, in a fiery Truth Social post on March 16, declared these pardons “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT,” arguing that their autopen signatures invalidated them. “Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!” Trump claimed, suggesting that unelected aides may have wielded unchecked power.

Why does this matter? Critics argue that the heavy reliance on an autopen raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability in the executive branch. If Biden was not personally signing key documents—or worse, unaware of their contents—it could imply that staff members or advisors were effectively making decisions on his behalf. This scenario fuels speculation about a “shadow presidency,” where the elected leader’s authority is undermined by those controlling the signature machine. 
​
Legal experts, however, note that the autopen’s use is not inherently problematic. A 2005 Justice Department memo concluded that a president need not physically sign a bill for it to become law, a precedent that likely extends to pardons. Courts have never struck down a presidential action solely because it was signed by autopen, and the Constitution does not specify that a pardon must bear a handwritten signature. Still, the perception of detachment is damaging. High-profile pardons, such as one for Biden’s son Hunter, acknowledged publicly by the former president, amplify the stakes—if these were autopen-signed without his direct involvement, it could erode public trust in the process.

The controversy is bad news for Biden’s legacy, already under scrutiny as he exited office. It feeds into narratives of an administration marked by inefficiency or disarray, potentially overshadowing policy achievements. For the public, it underscores a broader unease about governance: if a president can delegate something as personal as a signature, what else might be left to unelected hands? As Trump and his allies push the issue, calling for judicial review, the autopen debate is less about legality and more about the optics of leadership—a machine, not a man, appearing to hold the pen of power.