Which specific executive orders or bills were signed with an autopen by the biden administration?
Executive summary
President Trump announced he would “cancel” or declare “terminated” any executive orders and other documents he says were signed by President Joe Biden using an autopen, claiming roughly 92% of Biden’s signatures were automated (reports cite Biden having issued 162 executive orders) [1] [2]. Legal analysts and prior Justice Department guidance say autopen signatures can be valid if authorized by the president; congressional probes and reporting have not produced concrete evidence that aides used an autopen to sign documents without Biden’s knowledge [3] [4] [5].
1. What the claim is, and who is making it
President Trump posted on social media that “Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen… is hereby terminated,” and that roughly 92% of Biden’s documents were signed that way; he framed the action as canceling executive orders and other directives he says were not personally signed by Biden [1] [6]. Multiple outlets report Mr. Trump also threatened possible perjury charges if Biden says he authorized autopen use [5] [6].
2. Which specific orders or bills does reporting identify as autopen-signed?
Available sources do not list a definitive, corroborated inventory of which exact executive orders, pardons, or bills were executed by autopen during Biden’s presidency. News organizations note Biden issued about 162 executive orders overall (cited from the American Presidency Project) but do not confirm a public, authoritative list of which of those were autopen-signed [2] [7]. Congressional Republican reports and investigative outfits have compiled tables and claims (for example, The Oversight Project’s reporting and the House Oversight materials), but mainstream outlets stress those reports did not present concrete evidence proving aides signed without presidential authorization [8] [4].
3. Legal context: does using an autopen make an order invalid?
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has previously concluded that a president need not hand-sign bills and can direct an official “to affix the president’s signature… for example by autopen,” which undercuts the claim that autopen use automatically voids actions [4]. Legal commentators cited by news outlets say signature method is generally irrelevant to the legal validity of executive acts so long as the president authorized the procedure [3] [9]. Mainstream reporting emphasizes that declaring documents “terminated” by fiat raises serious legal questions and is not a straightforward or settled power [4] [7].
4. Evidence and oversight reporting so far
House Republican investigators released a report critical of Biden’s autopen use and pressed the Department of Justice for investigation, but multiple news organizations note the report did not include clear evidence that aides conspired to sign laws or orders without Biden’s awareness [7] [1]. Investigative projects have documented patterns of autopen use—claiming many clemency documents and executive orders were autopen-signed—but those findings remain contested and have not been universally accepted as proof of unauthorized action [8] [10].
5. Competing narratives and possible political motives
Conservative sources and House Republicans frame autopen use as evidence of a breakdown in presidential control and have proposed legislation to restrict autopen use (the “BIDEN Act” is one such bill) [11]. Critics and many legal analysts say this has become a political weapon: presidents of both parties have used autopens historically, and the issue is being litigated politically rather than settled by new legal rulings or incontrovertible facts [4] [9] [12].
6. What’s unknown and why that matters
Available reporting does not provide an independently verified, itemized list of which executive orders, pardons, or bills were signed by autopen and whether Biden personally authorized each instance; thus, claims about a precise roster of “autopen-signed” items remain unverified in the public record [2] [7]. That gap matters because reversing or declaring void a class of presidential actions would raise immediate legal challenges and practical disruption — and existing DOJ guidance and legal commentary suggest signature method alone is not dispositive [4] [3].
7. Bottom line for readers
The Trump White House’s announcement is a sweeping political move built on assertions about autopen prevalence and alleged lack of authorization; mainstream legal guidance and reporting say autopen use can be lawful and that the GOP oversight reports stopped short of proving that aides acted without Biden’s consent. Independent, public documentation identifying specific autopen-signed orders and showing lack of presidential authorization has not been produced in the sources reviewed [4] [3] [8].