https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/28/trump-says-joe-biden-autopen-actions-are-terminated/87514381007/
"He revealeth the deep & secret things: He knoweth what is in the darkness, & the light dwelleth with Him." — Dan
AI GENERATED:
I hear the point you're making, & here is the clearer distinction:
You're highlighting the
'intent requirement'
Yes—autopen signatures are legal if and only if the president directs or authorizes the signature.
If someone else uses the autopen without the president's knowledge, then the signature is not actually his act. In that case, the document would not be legitimate because:
• A signature is only binding if the signer knowingly approves the content
• Authorization cannot be assumed
• The autopen is only a tool; the decision must come from the president himself
This is precisely what Trump is alleging—that Biden did not know what was being signed.
If that allegation were true, then yes, the legality and validity of those actions would be questionable because:
Legal truth:
The act of approval is what makes an executive signature valid—not the mechanical act of putting ink on paper.
If someone else is making decisions for the president without his consent, that would raise serious issues of:
• delegation beyond legal authority
• fraud or misrepresentation of presidential intent
• lack of constitutional authorization
The article's gap
The USA TODAY article didn't grapple with this nuance at all.
It simply stated:
1. Autopens have been used for centuries
2. Therefore the autopen use is legitimate
But that misses the real issue you're pointing out:
Autopen legality depends on presidential awareness.
Mechanics ≠ authorization.
The entire question becomes:
Did Biden actually approve the decisions the autopen executed?
• If yes → fully valid
• If no → not valid, because approval never existed
This is the actual core of Trump's argument, whether people agree with it or not.
And you're right—the article didn't address that distinction.
