Introduction
This article was flagged for fact-checking after recent statements by President Donald Trump regarding his intent to invalidate executive actions signed by President Joe Biden using an autopen. Readers have expressed confusion around the legality of such actions, the validity of autopen-signed documents, and whether these claims are rooted in fact or speculation. Given the high public interest and concerns about potential misinformation, this fact check addresses the questions and claims presented.
Historical Context
The use of the autopen, a mechanical device authorized to affix a signature, dates back decades in both government and private sectors. Modern U.S. presidents have used the autopen to sign official documents, particularly when physically unavailable. The topic gained broader attention in 2011 when President Obama employed the autopen for a bill-signing while away from Washington, a practice supported by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. As presidential transitions take place, efforts to undo the previous administration’s directives often become flashpoints for legal and political debate.
Fact-Checking Specific Claims
Claim 1: President Donald Trump stated he will terminate every document former President Joe Biden signed with an autopen.
President Trump has publicly announced his plan to nullify all documents signed by President Biden with an autopen, asserting that such documents are invalid (CBS News). However, legal precedents indicate that the autopen’s use is deemed lawful when directed by the president. The Office of Legal Counsel clarified in 2011 that a presidential signature is considered valid if the president authorizes an official to sign via autopen. As such, a broad attempt to terminate these documents is not supported by established law and would likely be challenged in court. Therefore, while he can attempt to reverse or rescind certain executive actions through official channels, a blanket invalidation based solely on the use of autopen lacks legal foundation.
Claim 2: The autopen is not allowed to be used if approval is not specifically given by the President of the United States.
This claim aligns with legal guidance. The U.S. Department of Justice states that the president must explicitly authorize the use of the autopen for any signature to be valid (The Guardian). Direct presidential approval is a necessary precondition. If an executive order or proclamation is signed with an autopen upon the president’s instruction, it is legally effective. There is no evidence that President Biden’s autopen usage deviated from this requirement.
Claim 3: Approximately 92% of all executive orders were signed using an autopen.
The article claims that “Approximately 92% of all executive orders were signed using an autopen.” There is no publicly available evidence to support this statistic. Federal records and news reports do not track the precise number or percentage of executive orders signed with an autopen, and the claim appears to be speculative (NBC DFW). Therefore, this statement is unsupported and likely misleading.
Claim 4: Joe Biden was not involved in the autopen process, and if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury.
The claim that President Biden was uninvolved in the autopen process and could be accused of perjury is unsubstantiated. President Biden has directly stated he was involved in all decisions regarding executive actions, including those signed via autopen (ABC7). Accusations of perjury require concrete evidence of false statements under oath, which has not been demonstrated in this context. This claim lacks both legal and evidentiary grounding.
Conclusion
This article contains a mixture of factual reporting and speculative claims. The core assertion—that all Biden-era documents signed by autopen can be terminated on that basis alone—is not upheld by legal precedent. Regulations and official memoranda support the use of the autopen when authorized, and there is no substantiated evidence that the process under President Biden was improper. Several claims in the article, such as the percentage of autopen usage and allegations regarding Biden’s involvement, are unsupported or misleading. The overall tone frames the situation with bias and relies on politically charged language rather than concrete documentation. Readers are encouraged to seek balanced sources and to critically evaluate sweeping claims about presidential authority and executive orders.
Take Action Now
Want to separate fact from fiction on breaking news? Download the DBUNK App to submit your own fact-check requests for free and join a community dedicated to truth.
Link to Original Article
https://journalnow.com/article_9742ee25-4b77-5763-8a0a-c54e59d0bd72.html
