Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did President Biden use an Auto pen or was it it speculation. Did Trump use an autopen?
Executive summary
House Republicans’ October 2025 report concludes many Biden-era pardons and other actions were signed with an autopen and calls them “void” absent contemporaneous documentation tying the president to each decision [1] — Democrats and Biden aides push back, saying officials testified the president authorized the actions [2] [3]. Separately, reporting in November 2025 flagged near‑identical signatures on some recent Trump pardons that were quietly replaced by the Justice Department, prompting questions about whether an autopen or a technical error was involved [4] [5].
1. What the GOP report actually claims: “The Biden Autopen Presidency”
The House Oversight Committee’s GOP majority released a long staff report saying White House aides used an autopen to sign executive actions and that documentation is insufficient to prove President Biden personally approved many of those items; the committee “deems void” actions signed by autopen without written proof of the president’s contemporaneous consent and has asked the DOJ to review legal consequences [1] [3]. The report frames autopen use as evidence of concealed cognitive decline and urges investigations and referrals [1].
2. Democrats and Biden aides say the evidence does not support the GOP’s legal conclusion
Democrats on the committee and Biden allies called the probe a “sham investigation,” noting that “every White House official testified President Biden fully executed his duties” and that testimony said the former president authorized the executive orders, pardons and autopen use [2] [3]. News outlets covering both reports highlight the political disagreement: Republicans say autopen use undermines legitimacy, Democrats dispute that conclusion and argue the report offers little new proof [6] [7].
3. Historical and legal context on autopen use — precedent matters
Autopens have been used by presidents for decades for high‑volume or ceremonial signatures; legal experts note the Constitution does not require a handwritten signature for a pardon, and scholars say intent — not ink type — governs validity [8] [9]. The New York Times and other outlets point out autopen use dates back to at least Eisenhower and has been acknowledged by multiple administrations [8].
4. Evidence vs. inference: what reporters say the GOP report shows (and doesn’t)
Several mainstream outlets observed that the report largely rehashes public information and makes broad accusations without new hard proof that Biden lacked intent when autopen was used; PBS described the report as offering “little new information” and warned that aggressive scrutiny of past executive actions could create legal headaches for current officials who also use such devices [7]. The Guardian and The Independent similarly noted that the committee’s determinations depend on a standard that requires contemporaneous documentation linking the president to each action [10] [11].
5. Did Trump use an autopen? Reporting on recent Trump pardons
In November 2025 multiple outlets reported that some recently posted Trump pardons initially showed identical signatures; the Department of Justice replaced those copies and said the original issue was a “technical error” or staffing problem, while the White House insisted the president personally signed the documents [4] [5] [12]. The incident prompted commentators and some lawmakers to note that presidents of both parties have used autopens historically, and that identical signatures do not on their own prove autopen use [13] [14].
6. Competing interpretations and political incentives
Republicans use autopen examples to argue Biden was unfit and to nullify actions they dislike; Democrats warn that weaponizing autopen claims threatens institutional stability and could backfire when autopen or electronic‑signature irregularities affect Republican administrations too [1] [7]. Some reporting also points out irony: GOP critics who highlight Biden’s autopen use have themselves used staff signatures or electronic signing in congressional practice [15].
7. What is established by available reporting — and what isn’t
Available sources document that the GOP Oversight report says many Biden actions were signed via autopen and urges DOJ review [1] [3], and that near‑identical Trump signatures on some November pardons were replaced by the Justice Department amid questions [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention a definitive forensic public finding that Biden personally did not authorize each autopen‑signed action; likewise, available sources do not show a public forensic conclusion that Trump used an autopen on those November pardons — the administration calls the issue a technical error and says Trump signed them [3] [12].
Bottom line: reporting establishes that autopen use is at the center of partisan fights over presidential intent and legitimacy [1] [3], and that both Biden and Trump administrations have faced public scrutiny over signatures — but public sources provided here show disputed interpretations, not an uncontested forensic finding that either president’s clemency documents were invalidly executed [7] [9].