TT Trump’s Autopen Bombshell: Declares 92% of Biden’s Orders ‘Terminated’ Overnight – But DOJ Says It’s Totally Legal… What’s He Really Canceling and Why Now?

On Friday, former President Donald Trump made a provocative statement declaring that any document signed by President Joe Biden using an autopen “is hereby terminated.” This announcement has stirred controversy and raised questions about the legitimacy of documents signed via autopen by the current administration.

An autopen is a mechanical device used to replicate a person’s signature automatically. It has long been used by presidents and other officials to sign documents, particularly when they are unable to physically sign every paper themselves due to time constraints or travel. The use of autopen for signing bills into law has been recognized as lawful and practical by legal experts.

Trump alleges that those who “operated the Autopen did so illegally.” However, this claim conflicts with the position of the Justice Department’s legal counsel, which maintains that autopens are permissible for signing legislative bills and official documents.

The former president has not specified which documents or orders he is referring to, leaving the public and legal analysts uncertain about the scope of his assertion. The phrase “is hereby terminated” suggests an attempt to invalidate or nullify certain orders or documents retroactively, but without clarity on the precise orders, the legal standing of Trump’s claims remains murky.

The White House has yet to respond formally to the allegations or clarify the extent to which autopen signatures have been used by President Biden’s administration. ABC News has reached out to officials seeking more information, but as of now, no detailed explanation has been provided.

The use of autopen signatures has a long history in U.S. presidential practice. Presidents, including Biden’s predecessors, have utilized autopen devices for convenience and necessity, especially when on foreign trips or unable to sign in person. Courts and legal authorities have generally accepted autopen signatures when coupled with proper authorization and procedures.

From a legal perspective, the question centers on whether documents signed with an autopen retain their binding authority. The Justice Department’s stance affirms that they do, provided the use of an autopen follows established protocols. If Trump’s claim that the autopen was “operated illegally” is to be substantiated, it would require presenting specific evidence that unauthorized individuals used the device or that proper procedures were not followed.

The implications of Trump’s statement could be significant if acted upon. Declaring documents or orders invalid simply because of autopen signatures could lead to legal battles, political disputes, and administrative confusion. It raises concerns about the stability of executive actions and the acceptance of modern technology in governance.

This situation occurs amid ongoing political tensions and litigation involving the two former presidents. Trump’s declaration might be viewed in the context of broader efforts to challenge or contest Biden’s policies and decisions. Meanwhile, legal experts emphasize the importance of following conventional channels to address disputes over document authenticity and authority.

Observers note that without clear identification of the affected documents and without official review, Trump’s statement remains symbolic rather than legally binding. Neither courts nor federal agencies have taken steps to enforce such a termination based solely on the use of an autopen.

The administration and legal scholars agree on the importance of clarity and transparency in presidential documentation. They stress that any concerns about the legality or validity of orders must undergo formal legal scrutiny rather than public declarations that lack specific evidence.

As the situation unfolds, many will watch closely how the White House responds and whether the Department of Justice or Congress weighs in on the matter. The evolving debate over the use of autopen signatures highlights questions about presidential authority, the intersection of tradition and technology, and how political disputes can impact the functioning of government.

For now, the public must await further details and official statements before drawing conclusions about the significance and ramifications of Trump’s pronouncement. Until then, the role of autopen signatures remains legally accepted practice, used routinely under supervision and with proper protocols.

This episode underscores how modern technology intersects with long-standing governmental traditions and how interpretations of legality can become entangled in political strategy. It serves as a reminder that governance involves not only law and procedure but also effective communication and mutual understanding among branches of power.