New Delhi: US President Donald Trump has ignited an unlikely political storm over the autopen—the decades-old signature-replicating device that American presidents have relied on for routine paperwork. In a Truth Social post Friday, Trump declared that “any document signed by Joe Biden with the autopen… is hereby terminated,” which applies to “approximately 92 per cent” of his official acts.
Trump also claimed that the device had been used “illegally” and that Biden had not personally authorised many of the documents signed. He also warned that denying the claims could amount to perjury and threatened to cancel all executive orders and ‘anything else’ not signed physically by Biden.
The Oversight Project, a branch of the Trump-affiliated right-wing think tank Heritage Foundation, which published a report on Biden’s autopen use, has been a major proponent of the autopen claim. In a post earlier this year, it asserted, “Whoever controlled the autopen controlled the presidency.” Nevertheless, there was no proof in the report that Biden’s assistants plotted to carry out initiatives without his consent.
That controversy has thrown a mid-20th-century administrative tool — the autopen — into the spotlight.
What is an autopen?
An autopen is a mechanical signature device that uses a stored template of a person’s handwriting and a motorised arm holding a real pen to reproduce their signature. The final result is not a printed image but an ink-on-paper signature that looks handwritten.
The technology has older roots than many expect. Its earliest ancestor was the 19th-century “polygraph” created to help writers duplicate letters. Over the decades, the concept evolved into the modern autopen, which was commercialised in the mid-20th century and gradually found its way into government offices, corporate boardrooms, and the desks of high-profile figures who dealt with endless paperwork.
Modern autopens store a digital template of a signature, enabling the device to reproduce it multiple times with consistent pressure and fluidity — often indistinguishable to a lay observer from a genuine, hand-signed document.
In Washington, the autopen has become an essential backstage tool for presidents. While leaders like Thomas Jefferson used early versions of signature-replicating devices for personal correspondence, more recognisable autopens appeared in the second half of the 20th century.
Presidents from Harry Truman to John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan used them to sign routine letters or ceremonial documents. Barack Obama went a step further when he authorised an autopen to sign a key extension of the US PATRIOT Act in 2011 while he was travelling abroad. Since then, the device has been treated as a practical, legitimate part of the executive machinery.
Trump, too, admitted to using the autopen for “very unimportant papers” in March.
Over time, use of autopens has expanded beyond the White House: senators, cabinet members, state governors, and even institutions like universities have used them to manage high-volume correspondence, diplomas, and other documents.
Also read: What apong means for Arunachal—the rice beer that Jaideep Ahlawat offers in The Family Man
Is it legal?
The legal picture, however, is far clearer than the political uproar suggests.
In 2005, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded that the Constitution does not require the president to sign bills he approves physically. Directing someone, or something, to affix the signature counts as valid authorisation, provided the order to do so came from the president. Legal scholars note that the US Constitution does not specify how a signature must be made. For pardons, the requirement is even looser because the Constitution only states that the president has the power to grant them and does not mandate any particular form.
This is why most legal scholars dismissed the idea that autopen-signed documents could be retroactively voided. They argue that the real issue is not the machine itself but whether the president authorised each action. White House aides from past administrations have consistently said that autopen signatures are used only when the president has explicitly approved the document.
While using an autopen for official, legally binding government papers is a long-standing practice and a recurrent topic of discussion for US presidents, its use is much less widespread in other nations, which frequently rely on different constitutional procedures or physical stamps.
Why this matters now
Trump’s unprecedented declaration to “terminate” all autopen-signed orders by Biden hinges on two claims: that too many major documents were signed via autopen (he cited 92 per cent) and that Biden was not sufficiently involved or cognitively present.
If taken seriously, such a move could upend a wave of executive orders, including pardons, appointments, or policy directives, issued during Biden’s presidency. But the move also challenges long-standing legal norms and could prompt court battles over the constitutional validity of retroactive annulments.
In the White House’s new presidential gallery earlier this year, Trump displayed a picture of an autopen rather than Biden.
(Edited by Saptak Datta)