Sadiq S BhatWashington, DC — Donald Trump is challenging the legitimacy of Joe Biden's presidential pardons, claiming they were signed using an autopen and should therefore be considered void.
"The 'Pardons' that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen," Trump wrote on March 17 on Truth Social," Trump wrote on Truth Social on March 17, referring to Biden's pardons of congressional members who investigated the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
The US president's claim has ignited a heated debate in legal and political circles. Still, most experts dismiss the notion that a president's use of an autopen — a machine that replicates signatures — is unconstitutional.
"I think that it is extremely unlikely that there is a real issue, even if Mr. Biden signed some pardons by autopen," David Levine, Raymond L Sullivan professor of law at the University of California, College of the Law, told TRT World.
"Many governmental documents are signed that way and there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that requires a personal 'wet ink' signature."
One of the pardons in question
Levine pointed to an everyday example: "For comparison, we have signatures on all of our currency from the treasurer of the United States and the secretary of the treasury. Those people do not sign our individual bills personally, and no one questions the authenticity or validity of our paper currency."
The use of an autopen has precedent. In 2005, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion clarifying that a president could use the device to sign bills into law.
Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush both used autopens for official documents, including legislation and pardons. In 2011, Obama used an autopen while abroad to sign an extension of the Patriot Act.
TRT Global - Donald Trump claims clemency granted to several family members and others by Joe Biden has "no force or effect" as they were not personally signed by the ex-US president.
'Did Biden even know about pardons?'
Paul M Collins, Jr, a professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, dismissed Trump's argument outright.
"President Trump's suggestion that the use of an autopen invalidates President Biden's pardons is without merit. The use of an autopen by presidents is a well-accepted practice in the United States," he told TRT World.
Collins, who has written several books on the US legal and political system, including “The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump,” added, "It is a fringe argument that the use of an autopen invalidates official presidential actions."
"I have little reason to believe that Trump's allegations will affect broad public trust in the authenticity of the governmental process."
Yet conservative political circles in the US see a deeper issue here. Rachel Williams, a Washington, DC-based political expert, questioned whether Biden was aware of the pardons and whether the autopen was used without his approval.
"Did President Biden even know about these pardons? Was his signature used without his consent?" she asked.
"The real issue is whether they used an autopen without Biden's approval. When he was pressed on it, he sounded like he had no idea. If that's the case, these pardons might not even be valid."
Williams argued the controversy could land in court and have major consequences for key figures in the Biden administration.
"This could open the door to holding people accountable — Anthony Fauci, the Biden family, even members of the January 6 committee. That’s the bigger question here."
The White House has not engaged directly with Trump's claim. When asked at a press briefing whether administration lawyers had told Trump that he could legally undo Biden’s pardons, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump was merely "begging the question" of whether Biden was even aware of them.
Signed, sealed, valid
Trump's declaration, delivered in his characteristic all-caps style, has played well among his most ardent supporters, who see it as another move to upend what they call the "deep state."
But outside that circle, the weight of history and legal precedent leans heavily against the argument, scholars say.
Pamela S Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery professor of public interest law at Stanford Law School, dismissed the premise.
"It's impossible to take this argument seriously," she told TRT World.
"Presidents have used stamped signatures on various documents since at least the middle of the 19th century and perhaps even before that."
For legal experts, the issue appears settled. The Constitution does not dictate the precise method by which a president must affix their signature, and history shows that automation has long played a role in governance.
A signature, whether inked by hand or machine, is a declaration of authority, and courts have shown little appetite for upending established norms, they argue.
Levine, meanwhile, questioned Trump's own actions after assuming office the second time, turning the argument back.
"When President Trump pardoned over 1,000 people who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, did he really sign each and every one of those pardons personally on one day?"
