The use of an autopen—a mechanical device that replicates a person’s signature—by the President of the United States has been a topic of debate, particularly regarding what types of documents it can legally or appropriately be used for. While there is no comprehensive federal law explicitly governing autopen use across all presidential actions, historical precedent, constitutional considerations, and practical norms provide a framework for understanding what is and isn’t allowed. Below, I’ll outline the general guidelines, examples of permissible and impermissible uses, and how this might relate to the validity of pardons issued by former President Joe Biden.
What Is Allowed for Autopen Use
Presidents have used autopens for decades to manage the sheer volume of documents requiring their signature, especially those that are routine or ceremonial in nature. The practice dates back to at least Thomas Jefferson, who used an early version called a polygraph, and became more formalized with modern autop machines in the 20th century. Examples of documents typically considered acceptable for autopen signatures include:
Correspondence and Ceremonial Documents: Autopens are often used for signing letters, greeting cards, thank-you notes, or photographs sent to constituents, dignitaries, or organizations. For instance, a president might use an autopen to sign thousands of holiday cards or congratulatory messages to Eagle Scouts.
Military Commissions and Certificates: Historically, autop signatures have been applied to commissions for military officers or certificates of appreciation, where the signature serves a symbolic rather than legally operative purpose.
Legislation (with Authorization): The use of an autopen for signing bills into law has precedent and has been deemed legally permissible when explicitly authorized by the president. The first notable instance occurred in 2011 when President Barack Obama, while in France, authorized an autopen to sign an extension of the Patriot Act. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion stating that this was constitutional under Article I, Section 7, as long as the president directed its use, effectively treating the autopen as an extension of his intent to sign.
These uses are generally accepted because they either don’t involve the direct exercise of constitutional authority requiring personal discretion or are explicitly delegated by the president with clear intent.
What Is Not Allowed (or Controversial) for Autopen Use
Certain presidential actions involve unique constitutional powers that some argue require the president’s personal involvement, raising questions about whether an autopen is appropriate. Examples include:
Pardons and Clemency: The power to grant pardons is vested solely in the president under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.” Because this is a discretionary act tied to the president’s individual judgment, critics contend that using an autopen could undermine its legitimacy if the president didn’t personally review or approve each case. There’s no explicit legal prohibition, but the lack of a personal signature might invite challenges to the intent behind the pardon.
Executive Orders (Without Clear Authorization): Executive orders direct federal agencies and carry the force of law, reflecting the president’s Article II authority to manage the executive branch. While autop signatures have been used for executive orders, some legal scholars argue that if the president is unaware of or uninvolved in the issuance—say, due to cognitive decline or delegation to staff—the order’s validity could be questioned. The Constitution doesn’t mandate a handwritten signature, but the perception of presidential control is key.
Treaty Ratifications: Ratifying treaties under Article II, Section 2 requires the president’s personal engagement after Senate approval. While the physical act of signing might technically be delegated, any suggestion that an autopen was used without the president’s direct knowledge could cast doubt on the process, though this hasn’t been tested in court.
The core issue isn’t the autopen itself but whether the president personally authorized its use and understood the document being signed. Without that, the action’s legitimacy could be contested.
Joe Biden’s Use of the Autopen and Pardon Validity
During Joe Biden’s presidency (2021–2025), reports emerged—most notably from the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project in March 2025—that an autopen was used to sign a significant number of official documents, including executive orders and pardons. The Oversight Project claimed that nearly all documents bore an identical autopen signature, except for Biden’s July 2024 letter withdrawing from the presidential race and possibly his son Hunter Biden’s pardon. This has sparked debate about the validity of some of his actions, particularly pardons issued late in his term.
Examples of Biden’s Pardons
December 30, 2022 Pardons: Biden pardoned six individuals while vacationing in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Oversight Project alleges these bore the same autopen signature as other documents, despite stating they were “signed in the City of Washington.” At the same time, an omnibus spending bill was flown to him for a handwritten signature, suggesting selective use of the autopen.
Late-Term Pardons (January 2025): Biden issued controversial pardons for figures like Hunter Biden, Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and January 6 Committee members. Reports differ: some claim Hunter’s pardon was handwritten (described as “shaky”), while others, like those for Fauci and Milley, allegedly used the autopen.
Potential Impact on Validity
The validity of these pardons hinges on two questions: legal precedent and presidential intent.
Legal Precedent: The Constitution doesn’t specify how a pardon must be signed, and the OLC’s 2011 opinion on autopen use for legislation suggests it’s permissible if authorized. Courts have historically upheld presidential actions absent fraud or clear evidence of non-delegation. No pardon has been overturned solely for being autopen-signed, so Biden’s pardons would likely stand unless new evidence emerges.
Presidential Intent: Critics, including Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and former President Donald Trump, argue that Biden’s reported cognitive decline—highlighted by Special Counsel Robert Hur’s 2024 report calling him an “elderly man with a poor memory”—raises doubts about whether he knowingly authorized the autop signatures. If it were proven that unelected staff controlled the autopen without Biden’s awareness, it could theoretically render the pardons voidable. However, this would require concrete evidence (e.g., internal White House records or testimony), which isn’t publicly available as of March 16, 2025.
Objective Considerations
Pro-Validity Argument: Autopen use is a practical necessity, and Biden’s administration likely followed established protocols, documenting his authorization. The White House went to lengths to ensure physical signatures for major bills (e.g., the 2022 Ukraine aid package), suggesting awareness of when personal signing mattered. Pardons could fall under similar delegated authority, making them legally sound.
Anti-Validity Argument: The consistency of the autopen signature across documents, combined with Biden’s public struggles (e.g., debate gaffes, physical frailty), fuels skepticism about his engagement. If he didn’t personally review each pardon—especially high-profile ones like Fauci’s or Milley’s—the perception of a “shadow presidency” could undermine their legitimacy, even if courts uphold them.
Presidents can use autopens for routine or authorized tasks like correspondence and, with clear intent, legislation or executive orders. However, for discretionary acts like pardons, where personal judgment is constitutionally central, autopen use is more contentious—though not explicitly illegal. For Biden’s pardons, their validity likely holds under current law unless evidence proves he was wholly detached from the process. As of now, the debate is more political than judicial, but it underscores the tension between efficiency and accountability in the modern presidency. Future investigations or litigation could clarify these boundaries, especially if internal records surface. 17GEN4.com
Comments