Has Donald Trump publicly acknowledged using an autopen for signing documents?
Executive summary
Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked Joe Biden’s use of an autopen and on Nov. 28, 2025 publicly declared he was “terminating” or “cancelling” documents he said were signed by Biden with an autopen — asserting roughly “92%” of Biden’s documents fell into that category — and threatening perjury charges if Biden says he approved them [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets note Trump himself and other recent presidents have used the device, and legal experts and reporting say longstanding precedent and Justice Department guidance complicate any claim that autopen use alone voids official acts [4] [5] [1].
1. Trump’s public acknowledgment and proclamation: blunt, repeated, public
Donald Trump publicly and repeatedly asserted on social media that many of Joe Biden’s executive orders and other documents were signed by an autopen and therefore illegitimate; he posted a message saying “Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated” and threatened perjury charges against Biden if he claims otherwise [3] [1] [2].
2. Media coverage: consistent reporting of the claim, varied framing
Major U.S. outlets and international press covered Trump’s proclamation in similar terms — reporting the Truth Social post, the 92% figure he cited, and his stated intention to cancel autopen-signed items — while framing the claim with varying degrees of skepticism and context about autopen history and legality [1] [4] [6].
3. Historical practice: autopen is not unprecedented in the White House
Reporting and historical notes point out that multiple presidents have used autopen technology to affix signatures when physically unavailable — a practice documented back decades and used for routine matters; outlets explicitly note Trump himself has used autopen in the past and that other presidents relied on it for key papers [4] [5] [7].
4. Legal context and precedent: prior OLC opinion and expert views matter
Analysts and legal precedent cited in reporting make clear the law is not straightforwardly on Trump’s stated ground. Past Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel work concluded a president need not physically affix a signature to effectuate a bill, and legal experts quoted say it’s unlikely a later president can simply void prior administration acts solely because an autopen was used [1] [8]. Coverage shows contested views among lawyers but substantial skepticism that autopen use alone renders official acts void [1] [8].
5. Political motive and messaging: delegitimizing a predecessor
Multiple outlets describe Trump’s attack as part of a long-running campaign to delegitimize Biden’s presidency and to dramatize claims about Biden’s cognitive fitness, noting the autopen narrative has been central to those allegations and to efforts to question specific pardons and policy actions [6] [7]. Conservative allies — for example, House Oversight Chairman praise — framed Trump’s move as corrective [9].
6. What reporting does not show: evidentiary support for “forgery” claims
Available sources show reportage of accusations and political claims but do not present documentary evidence that Biden’s staff acted without his approval in specific cases; some congressional probes raised questions but, according to reporting, did not produce direct proof that the president’s substantive decisions were forged [10] [6]. Available sources do not mention incontrovertible evidence that Biden personally lacked knowledge for the autopen-signed actions.
7. Practical and constitutional limits on unilateral nullification
News coverage highlights immediate practical and legal doubts about Trump’s ability to unilaterally void past executive acts on the basis he described; outlets cite experts who say rescission of prior executive orders is politically and legally fraught and that longstanding practices and precedents constrain such sweeping retroactive invalidations [1] [8] [5].
8. Takeaway for readers: claims vs. courtroom reality
Trump has publicly and plainly claimed autopen use invalidated Biden’s actions and declared many such acts “terminated” — and he anchored that claim with a numeric assertion (92%) — but reporting from multiple outlets underscores that autopen use is common historically, that Trump and others have used it, and that legal precedent and expert opinion undermine the simple legal conclusion Trump advances [3] [4] [1] [8]. Readers should treat the proclamation as a political act with disputed legal footing rather than an established legal nullification.
Limitations: this summary draws only on the set of news reports provided; sources cited report claims, expert reactions and historical context but do not provide exhaustive legal analysis or any newly disclosed primary documents proving unauthorized autopen usage in specific instances [1] [6].