Are there documented instances of Joe Biden personally signing the same documents autopen was used for?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows a political fight over Joe Biden’s use of an autopen — one in which former President Trump has declared he will “terminate” documents he claims were signed by autopen and repeatedly asserts roughly “92%” of Biden’s documents used an autopen [1] [2]. Major outlets note Trump offers no evidence that Biden did not authorize autopen use and that autopen use by presidents is long-established [3] [1].
1. What the record in these articles actually documents
News stories collected here report assertions and political actions, not independent forensic proof that Biden personally did or did not sign specific documents. Several outlets quote Trump’s public posts saying he will cancel documents signed with an autopen and alleging Biden didn’t personally authorize many such signatures [1] [2]. Those same stories and commentaries characterize Trump’s claims as unproven or baseless and point out there is no published evidence in these reports that White House staff forged Biden’s signature [3] [4].
2. The autopen claim and the “92%” figure
Multiple outlets repeat Trump’s figure that “approximately 92%” of Biden’s documents were signed via autopen; they attribute that percentage to his social-media statements rather than to an independent audit or released dataset [1] [2]. Press coverage consistently frames the 92% number as an allegation made by Trump and his allies rather than an established fact verified in these reports [1] [4].
3. Historical context journalists emphasize: autopen is not new
Reporting notes that use of autopen devices by presidents is a longstanding practice and that prior presidents, including Trump himself, have used automated-signing devices — a fact deployed by outlets that push back on claims that autopen use is inherently illegitimate [3]. That context appears repeatedly in mainstream coverage as a counterpoint to arguments that autopen use equals forgery [3].
4. Investigations, oversight, and partisan framing
These articles place the autopen controversy in a partisan oversight frame: Republican investigators and Trump allies have used autopen claims to allege cognitive decline or unauthorized actions by Biden aides, while news outlets describe those allegations as unproven in their reporting [5] [6]. Some conservative outlets report Trump’s nullification announcement as decisive; mainstream outlets flag the legal and evidentiary questions such a move raises [7] [3].
5. What the sources do not provide — key gaps
Available sources do not publish forensic examples showing specific documents that Biden personally signed versus signatures created by an autopen; they do not provide internal White House logs or contemporaneous approvals proving unauthorized autopen use [3] [1]. Reports also do not present a judicial or administrative ruling that ending autopen-signed documents is lawful or that Biden committed perjury by acknowledging autopen use [3] [8].
6. Competing perspectives present in the coverage
Mainstream outlets (The Guardian, CNN) characterize Trump’s autopen allegations as unsubstantiated and emphasize historical autopen use by presidents; conservative and partisan outlets (Fox, PJ Media, Newsweek pieces relaying Trump’s post) amplify Trump’s claims and his announced cancellation of those documents [3] [9] [8] [2]. The coverage therefore splits along lines of credulous relay versus skeptical scrutiny, and each side cites different institutional priorities: holding a president accountable vs. upholding long-standing administrative practices [3] [8] [2].
7. Practical and legal implications flagged by reporters
Journalists note practical and legal uncertainty about how a successor would “cancel” past executive actions and whether autopen use, even if widespread, automatically nullifies documents — questions these sources report but do not resolve with definitive legal findings [3] [1] [7]. Coverage also flags political motivations: the autopen story is being used by opponents to portray Biden as diminished and by allies to portray the attacks as politically motivated [6] [3].
8. Bottom line for your original question
The articles summarize public accusations that many Biden signatures were applied by autopen and repeat Trump’s claim about “92%,” but they do not document independent, item-by-item proof within these reports that Joe Biden personally signed the same documents autopen was used for. In other words, available sources repeat the allegation and present counter-arguments and historical context, but they do not publish conclusive evidentiary records showing which specific documents Biden personally signed [1] [3] [2].