Brace yourself for a presidential showdown that could rewrite the rulebook on executive authority.
President Donald Trump has dropped a bombshell, declaring all documents signed by former President Joe Biden via autopen as null and void, while raising the specter of perjury charges if Biden claims involvement in the process, according to the New York Post.
On Friday, November 28, 2025, Trump announced the repeal of countless documents from Biden’s tenure, alleging that a staggering 92% were signed using an autopen without direct presidential consent, alongside threats of legal action and accusations of unauthorized governance by unelected aides.
Trump, at 79, has long painted Biden, 83, as disengaged during his four-year term, often labeling him as absent from critical decision-making. The charge that unelected staffers effectively ran the show without proper oversight resonates with many who’ve grown wary of bureaucratic overreach. It’s a narrative that strikes at the heart of trust in government.
Now, let’s unpack this autopen business—it’s not just a fancy gadget for signing holiday cards. Legal precedent, including a 2005 Justice Department analysis under George W. Bush, holds that autopen signatures are valid if a subordinate acts under presidential directive, a practice spanning decades for routine matters and even some legislation.
Yet, Trump insists that without Biden’s explicit approval for each use, these signatures are illegitimate. He’s already moved to scrap many of Biden’s executive orders and even questioned the validity of certain pardons. It’s a sweeping rejection of the prior administration’s legacy that’s got supporters cheering for accountability.
“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,” Trump declared. “The Autopen is not allowed to be used if approval is not specifically given by the President of the United States.” That’s a direct line in the sand, and it’s hard not to admire the sheer audacity of calling out what he sees as a procedural sham.
But Trump didn’t stop at revocation—he’s playing hardball with a threat of perjury charges if Biden claims he authorized the autopen’s use. It’s a daring escalation, suggesting a deep distrust in Biden’s engagement with his own administration’s actions. For those frustrated by perceived incompetence, this feels like a long-overdue reckoning.
A House Republican-led investigation this year found no concrete proof that aides acted without Biden’s blessing, though it unearthed circumstantial hints that Biden seldom interacted with key West Wing staff. Internal emails revealed some authorization records but also unease among subordinates about executing verbally relayed instructions, especially on last-minute clemency actions. It paints a murky picture of leadership—or the lack thereof.
Biden, for his part, told the New York Times in 2025 that he greenlit the use of his name for contentious end-of-term pardons. That admission might fuel Trump’s fire, as it raises questions about how hands-on—or hands-off—Biden truly was. A spokeswoman for Biden declined to comment, leaving the public to wonder what’s really behind the silence.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has thrown his weight behind Trump’s proclamation, praising the decision to invalidate autopen-signed actions. “I applaud President Trump for deeming President Biden’s autopen actions null and void,” Comer stated. It’s a strong endorsement from a key GOP figure, though the practical impact on specific documents and pardons remains unclear.
For many conservatives, this isn’t just about signatures—it’s about who’s really calling the shots in the Oval Office. The idea that aides could wield unchecked power under the guise of a mechanical pen strikes a nerve with those skeptical of the progressive agenda’s backdoor tactics. It’s a call to restore direct accountability to the highest office.
Critics might argue that autopen use is a harmless efficiency tool, long accepted in Washington’s grind. But when 92% of a president’s documents bear a machine’s mark, it’s fair to ask whether the commander-in-chief was truly in command. That’s the nagging doubt Trump is banking on to rally his base.
As Trump forges ahead with repeals, the ripple effects on Biden’s executive orders and clemency grants are still unfolding. Many see this as a rightful correction to what they view as a presidency marred by detachment and overreliance on unelected hands. It’s a stance that demands we rethink how much trust we place in the person behind the desk—or the machine mimicking their pen.
While legal scholars may debate the fine print of autopen authority, the court of public opinion is already buzzing with divided takes. For those fed up with bureaucratic sleight-of-hand, Trump’s actions feel like a breath of fresh air, even if they come with a side of legal uncertainty. It’s a reminder that power, and the signature that wields it, should never be taken lightly.
In the end, this clash over a mechanical pen might just redefine how we view presidential responsibility. Trump’s gambit is a challenge to the status quo, a push to ensure the people’s elected leader isn’t reduced to a rubber stamp—or worse, a robotic one. For conservatives, it’s a fight worth watching, and perhaps, worth winning.
