President Donald Trump has raised objections to the legitimacy of pardons issued by President Joe Biden, citing the use of an autopen for signatures as his primary concern. Trump’s challenge has sparked a debate over the constitutional validity of autopen-signed pardons, although presidents have relied on these devices for various official functions for decades.
Autopens are devices that replicate a person’s signature, a tool used by several presidents to manage their workload. Despite their historical use, Trump’s argument hinges on the belief that such signatures lack the personal acknowledgment required for a pardon. He expressed his doubts on his social media platform, stating that Biden’s autopen usage undermines the legitimacy of the pardons issued to those involved with the January 6 Capitol riot investigation.
The assertion from Trump lacks evidence and is not supported by the White House. Historically, presidents have wielded the power to pardon as they see fit, with no explicit requirement that pardons be completed in writing, according to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the use of autopen signatures has precedent; President Barack Obama notably used one in 2011 to sign an extension of the Patriot Act while abroad.
Conservative groups have taken up Trump’s claims, with the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project suggesting that many of Biden’s signed documents, including pardons, were executed by autopen. The project’s executive director, Mike Howell, questions the legality of delegating such power to a machine, highlighting instances where Biden’s documents indicate signatures from Washington on dates he was elsewhere.
Related Stories
There is no specific legal restriction on a president’s use of an autopen. A 2005 Justice Department opinion confirmed its legitimacy for signing legislation. Concerns over the significance of autopen use in controversial and high-stakes scenarios, such as pardons, continue to fuel debate among politicians and legal experts.
Biden, near the end of his presidency, issued several ‘preemptive pardons’ aimed at protecting lawmakers and staff from potential repercussions by Trump. Legal experts argue that the Constitution imposes no formal stipulations requiring pardons to be inked personally by the president. Carl Tobias from the University of Richmond emphasizes that the pardons, as articulated in the documentation, remain official acts.
The controversy surrounding Biden’s use of an autopen to issue pardons remains a point of contention, highlighting the broader discussion regarding the interpretation of presidential powers. This debate underscores the ongoing examination of historical precedents and constitutional interpretations related to modern presidential practices such as the use of autopens.
