Which federal laws did Donald Trump sign using an autopen in 2020 and why?
Executive summary
Donald Trump announced he would “terminate” any document he says former president Joe Biden signed with an autopen — claiming roughly 92% of Biden’s signatures were automated — and threatened perjury charges if Biden disputes that assertion [1] [2]. Legal guidance cited by multiple outlets says autopen use by presidents is longstanding and lawful when authorized, and the Justice Department’s 2005 opinion says a president need not personally affix a signature for an act to be valid [3] [1] [2].
1. What Trump actually said and the scope of his claim
Trump posted on Truth Social that “Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect,” and he added that Biden could face perjury charges if he says he authorized the autopen usage [1] [4]. News reports show Trump framed this as cancelling executive orders and “anything else” not directly signed by Biden, but he did not specify which exact documents he meant or provide a legal mechanism for voiding them [4] [5] [6].
2. Which federal laws or orders are implicated — reporting finds none named
Available reporting does not identify a specific list of federal laws, executive orders, pardons or other documents that Trump says were signed by autopen in 2020 or any other year; outlets note ambiguity about what falls into the 92% figure and say Trump did not name exact orders [5] [7] [8]. Coverage repeatedly emphasizes it’s unclear how the administration would determine which documents were autopen-signed or what the legal process would be to “terminate” them [6] [7].
3. What the law and past DOJ guidance say about autopen use
A 2005 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion, repeatedly cited by outlets, concluded a president need not personally perform the physical act of affixing a signature for a bill to become law; that memo and later legal commentary treated autopen use as lawful when authorized by the president [1] [2] [3]. FactCheck and Stanford Law analysis note constitutional scholars say the Constitution does not even require a pardon be written, undermining the premise that an autopen signature would by itself invalidate pardons [9] [10].
4. Historical practice and bipartisan precedent
Reporting stresses the autopen has been used by multiple presidents for routine or bulk matters; Trump himself has acknowledged limited autopen use in the past [3] [5]. News outlets and legal experts quoted in the coverage point out autopen use is a longstanding administrative tool rather than a novel or uniquely Biden practice [3] [2].
5. Political motives, messaging and evidentiary gaps
Multiple outlets frame Trump’s autopen campaign as political messaging: Republicans on oversight committees pushed the issue and Trump has repeatedly targeted Biden’s fitness and decision-making; independent analyses say the GOP report on autopen use lacked concrete evidence that aides conspired to act without Biden’s knowledge [11] [3]. The narrative serves to delegitimize Biden-era actions, but reporting documents significant evidentiary gaps and does not corroborate claims that Biden was unaware or did not authorize the uses alleged [11] [3].
6. Legal experts’ and scholars’ counterarguments
Legal scholars and practitioners quoted in news coverage call Trump’s proclamation legally dubious. Experts say it’s “very hard to imagine” a successful legal theory to void documents solely because a mechanical signature was used; they highlight the DOJ’s prior opinion and the constitutional grant of pardon power as counters to the premise that signature mechanics dictate validity [7] [9] [10].
7. Practical and procedural problems with voiding documents
Reporters note practical problems: many documents may have been signed by autopen, autopen usage isn’t always publicly recorded, and presidents routinely rescind predecessors’ executive actions by issuing new ones rather than declaring them void retroactively on signature-form grounds [6] [5]. Outlets flag the absence of any clear process Trump intends to follow beyond a public proclamation [4] [6].
8. Bottom line for readers
Current reporting does not list specific federal laws or executive orders from 2020 that Trump says were autopen-signed, and the legal consensus cited in these sources contradicts the idea that autopen use alone invalidates presidential acts. The claim that 92% of Biden’s signatures were automated and therefore void is asserted by Trump in social posts but not substantiated with named documents or legal rulings in the reporting reviewed [1] [2] [5].