The announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump that he will invalidate all documents allegedly signed with an automatic pen during Joe Biden’s term has revived a highly unusual debate in American political history.[i] The automatic-pen device, which has been used for many years within the U.S. administration, is a mechanical tool that signs documents on behalf of the president upon authorization. Trump’s statement has abruptly pulled what appears to be a technical administrative procedure into the center of a debate over constitutional authority, administrative continuity, and political legitimacy. Thus, the issue is not merely a dispute about a signature; it also raises fundamental questions about how the American presidential system functions.
At the core of Trump’s claim lies the argument that Biden did not provide the necessary authorization for the use of these signatures. In U.S. administrative practice, no president is expected to personally sign every document by hand. Because of busy schedules, global travel, or health issues, presidents may authorize specific documents using an automatic-pen device. This method has historical roots dating back to the Truman administration and has been considered a completely legal practice during Biden’s term as well.
Trump’s rhetoric has been anchored in the claim of an exceptionally high figure of 92%..[ii] Nonetheless, there are no official records available to the public that validate such percentages. Consequently, it appears that the assertion is mainly intended to build a political narrative. In Trump’s remarks, a political framework is created that implies the advisers working with Biden have ‘exceeded legal limits’ and misused presidential power. This kind of language corresponds with Trump’s ongoing campaign message that indicates ”Biden’s administration is illegitimate.”
From a legal standpoint, it is not a standard practice in the United States for a president to “invalidate” documents signed by a predecessor. A president may rescind a former president’s executive orders; indeed, once in office, Trump signed a series of executive orders overturning many of Biden’s decisions. Yet what is being proposed here is different: Trump is not merely seeking to annul specific directives, but is advancing a claim of legal nullity based on the manner of signature itself. This situation, however, delves into a unique and controversial aspect of American law. The legitimacy of executive orders and signed papers has mainly been evaluated through the internal processes of the executive branch and viewed as part of political discretion. In this regard, depending solely on the act of signing to ‘nullify’ a document is seen as incompatible with the basic principles guiding the system.
Another of Trump’s assertions is that Biden did not authorize the use of the automatic pen. Biden’s silence on the matter or the timing of his statements was linked by Trump to the threat of an accusation of false declaration. In American history, it has been exceedingly rare for such allegations to be directed at a sitting or former president. Yet this threat has largely been interpreted as a tool of political pressure. The tone of Trump’s statement likewise suggests an intention aimed more at political mobilization than at making a legal determination. Within this framework, the automatic-pen issue appears to have offered Trump’s support base a new narrative portraying the Biden administration as having taken “illegitimate steps.”
On the other hand, this statement also carries institutional implications. Several executive orders issued during the Biden administration and still in force now appear, according to Trump’s remarks, to have become targets. For instance, Executive Order 14087 aimed at reducing drug prices, Executive Order 14096 prioritizing environmental justice, and Executive Order 14110 concerning AI oversight are regulations that have produced significant shifts in public policy. Declaring such documents invalid solely due to the method of signature could undermine the principle of legal certainty. This is because societal and institutional trust in the legal foundations underpinning the executive branch’s actions would be weakened.
Furthermore, a complicated technical procedure inside federal agencies has been highlighted by Trump’s statement. It’s unclear who would check the documents and how if the legitimacy of these signatures were actually contested. How the Department of Justice, the National Archives, or the White House would carry out such a study is still unknown. This ambiguity has been thought to be a factor that might interfere with state processes.
Trump’s action has intensified political discussions over the United States’ institutional continuity beyond 2025. The legitimacy of actions done by the Biden administration is now more than just a matter of political disagreement; it now involves more general worries about trust in the state’s ability to function. Trump’s statement offered his supporters a display of political strength; yet it simultaneously introduced questions about institutional stability. Such forceful interventions have been viewed as steps that exacerbate polarization within American political culture.
Evaluating this debate within a broader context points to the principle of checks and balances in the American presidential system. The presidency wields considerable executive power, yet the legitimacy of that power rests on procedural foundations. Thus, the automatic-pen device merely a technical tool is in fact an ordinary instrument used to maintain institutional continuity. Trump’s attempt to politicize it appears to have triggered a broader discussion on the means and limits through which executive authority should be exercised.
In conclusion, Trump’s statement on the automatic pen appears to have generated an unexpected agenda both in American politics and in the legal literature. Although the issue may seem purely technical, it ultimately rests on the axes of presidential authority, state legitimacy, and institutional continuity. It remains unclear what long-term legal consequences Trump’s move may produce; however, in the short term it has clearly created a new point of contention in U.S. politics. Should the issue intensify further, new remarks or assessments may come from government institutions. According to this viewpoint, the automatic-pen controversy has evolved into a new political debate about the viability of the American administrative system rather than just a technical disagreement over signature methods.
[i] Koch, Alexandra. “Trump to void all documents allegedly signed by Biden via otomatik kalem, threatens perjury charge”, Fox News, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-void-documents-allegedly-signed-biden-via-autopen-threatens-perjury-charge, (Date Accessed: 30.11.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
