In a recent post on Truth Social, former President Donald Trump asserted that many of the pardons issued by President Joe Biden are void because they were signed using an autopen—a device that reproduces signatures—rather than by hand. However, Trump has not provided any evidence to support this claim. In contrast, investigations by BBC Verify have revealed multiple instances where Biden signed pardons manually, undermining Trump's assertion.
Trump's statement included a declaration that the pardons given by "Sleepy Joe Biden" to various individuals, including those associated with the January 6th Capitol riots, are "VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT." Although he did not specify which pardons he was referring to, he has previously criticized Biden's pardoning actions, especially those involving family members and political figures.
To clarify the situation, BBC Verify examined official photographs from the White House and found several images of Biden signing pardons by hand. Notably, in October 2022, he was photographed signing a pardon for individuals incarcerated for marijuana possession, as well as another for non-violent offenders. It remains unclear whether Biden has ever used the autopen for signing pardons, although a report from CNN indicated that he used the device to sign a bill related to federal aviation funding in May 2022.
Trump's claims appear to have been influenced by the Oversight Project, a segment of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. This group has alleged that Biden's pardons, particularly those issued on January 19, 2022, were all signed using the autopen. BBC Verify has reached out to the Heritage Foundation for further clarification regarding their claims.
The Federal Register serves as the official daily publication for various presidential and government documents, which include standardized signatures created from a sample of the President's signature. A spokesperson for the National Archives informed the fact-checking website Snopes that when a new president takes office, a sample of their signature is sent to the Federal Register to create the graphic image used for all presidential documents published in the register. This process was consistent during both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Legal experts affirm that there is no stipulation in U.S. law stating that pardons signed with an autopen are not legally binding. According to Andrew Moran, a politics professor at London Metropolitan University, previous presidents have utilized autopen for various documents, including less significant ones. However, he expressed that it is more common for significant documents, like pardons, to be signed manually.
A memo from the Department of Justice during the Bush administration indicated that a president is not required to physically sign a bill for it to become law. The memo clarified that a president could direct a subordinate to affix their signature using autopen. While President George W. Bush did not use autopen, President Barack Obama did in 2011, and earlier presidents, including John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman, also employed the device.
According to Professor Erin Delaney, director of the Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism at UCL, any attempt by Trump to rescind Biden's pardons would violate unwritten constitutional norms. She emphasizes that this action would require prosecuting the individuals who were granted pardons, which could create significant legal challenges.
Professor Moran points out that it is exceedingly rare for a president to revoke the pardons of their predecessor. He cites a historical example from the 1860s when President Andrew Johnson issued a few pardons that were revoked before acceptance. Should Trump pursue legal action against those pardoned by Biden, it would likely lead to court cases that could test the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution.
This analysis highlights the ongoing debate surrounding presidential pardons and the implications of using autopen technology in the signing process. As the political landscape evolves, the legality and validity of such actions remain critical topics for discussion.
