Did Biden use an autopen to sign any classified or national security orders?

1. What the accusation actually says — autopen, not always the president’s hand

Republicans and President Trump have repeatedly alleged Biden’s aides used an autopen to sign a large share of his official actions and that many of those — including pardons, executive orders and memoranda — lacked proper presidential authorization; Trump claimed about “92%” of Biden’s orders were autopen-signed and declared he would “terminate” those documents ^{[5] [2]}. The House Oversight Committee released a report asserting aides “facilitated executive actions without direct authorization,” explicitly naming clemency grants, executive orders and memoranda as among the documents implicated ^[3].

2. What the White House documents and orders show

A November 2025 White House document cited in coverage directs the Counsel to the President to investigate the “circumstances surrounding Biden’s supposed execution of numerous executive actions” and lists policy documents — including clemency grants, executive orders and presidential memoranda — as part of that probe, indicating the executive branch itself recorded controversy and directed review ^[4]. That document frames the issue as an internal question of documentation and process rather than an immediately adjudicated legal nullification ^[4].

3. No single-source public proof about classified or national-security orders

Available sources do not provide a definitive public example showing a classified or national-security order was signed by autopen without Biden’s knowledge. Reporting emphasizes assertions and committee findings about clemency and executive actions generally but stops short of presenting a publicly verifiable case that specifically classified national-security directives were autopen-signed and implemented without presidential intent ^{[3] [1] [2]}.

4. Legal and practical context around autopen use

News coverage and legal commentary note autopen use in the White House has a long history and that presidents have used mechanical signature devices for routine matters; experts quoted in the reporting say nullifying broad categories of documents on the basis of signature method raises complex legal questions ^{[1] [2]}. Media outlets flag that Trump's unilateral declarations to “terminate” autopen-signed documents are legally and administratively fraught and that determining which documents qualify would be difficult in practice ^{[6] [7]}.

5. Competing narratives and political motives

Republican investigators and Trump portray the autopen issue as evidence of concealed incapacity and alleged lawbreaking by Biden aides; the House Oversight report uses stark language about “deception” and calls for DOJ review ^[3]. Biden allies and some commentators call these claims politically motivated and point to the historical, routine use of autopens by prior presidents — including Republican ones — arguing the present controversy is weaponized for political advantage ^{[2] [1]}.

6. What journalists and outlets are reporting now

Mainstream outlets (CNN, Guardian, Al Jazeera, Independent, ABC) cover the President’s social-media declarations and the Oversight report, stressing that accusations are serious but disputed, and that there is no public, conclusive evidence presented that national-security or classified orders were auto-signed without Biden’s authorization ^{[1] [8] [2] [6] [9]}. Fringe sites and partisan outlets amplify dramatic claims like “92% nullified,” but those claims are presented as the President’s estimate rather than independently verified fact ^{[5] [10] [11]}.

7. What remains unresolved and what to watch next

Key unanswered questions in the public record include which specific documents (if any) involving classified or national-security decisions were executed by autopen, what internal approvals accompanied those signatures, and what legal footing any successor administration has to “terminate” them; sources note the White House counsel’s review and congressional reports but do not point to a clear, publicly documented instance of an autopen-signed classified order lacking presidential intent ^{[4] [3] [1]}. Future disclosures from the DOJ review, Oversight’s evidence files, or declassification decisions would materially change the public record ^{[3] [4]}.

Limitations: this analysis relies only on the provided reporting; available sources do not include a primary, verifiable example showing a classified or national-security order was autopen-signed without Biden’s involvement, and assertions of large percentages (e.g., 92%) originate with political actors rather than independent audit documentation in the materials cited ^{[5] [2]}.