The claim that the majority of President Biden’s laws and executive orders were signed using an autopen without his knowledge or approval is . While autopens have been used by presidents for decades to sign routine documents, the Constitution requires the president to approve legislation for it to become law, regardless of whether the signature is physical or mechanical. Here’s a breakdown:
—
###
1. :
– The autopen is typically used for non-controversial or administrative actions, such as extending deadlines (e.g., a one-week FAA funding bill signed by Biden in 2024 while he was traveling) .
– There is Biden used the autopen to sign major legislation without his direct approval. The Justice Department has affirmed that presidents may authorize autopens to sign bills, provided they explicitly approve the action .
2. :
– Critics argue the autopen violates Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, which states the president “shall sign” bills. However, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel ruled in 2005 that a president need not physically sign a bill as long as they approve it . Similar logic applied to Biden’s FAA extension .
– No court has ever invalidated a law signed via autopen .
—
###
The implication that Biden was not in control is unfounded:
– Executive orders and legislation require presidential approval, even if signed via autopen. For example:
– Biden’s 2025 order blocking the U.S. Steel-Nippon Steel deal involved direct policy alignment with his administration’s economic and labor priorities .
– His revocation of Trump-era executive orders on his first day in office (2025) reflected deliberate policy reversals .
– The White House staff secretary manages autopen use under strict presidential authorization . There is no evidence of rogue actors wielding the autopen without Biden’s knowledge.
—
###
– Rep. Al Green (D-TX) was censured for disrupting President Trump’s speech, with Democrats singing We Shall Overcome in protest .
– This incident is unrelated to autopen use but highlights heightened partisan tensions. Republicans criticized the protest as “disorderly,” while Democrats called the censure politically motivated .
—
###
– Unless evidence emerges of unauthorized autopen use, there is no legal basis for prosecuting officials. The DOJ’s 2005 opinion shields authorized autopen use .
– Laws signed via autopen remain valid unless overturned by courts. No such precedent exists.
—
###
The query references a “major blow” SCOTUS gave to Trump’s foreign aid pause, likely alluding to rulings limiting executive power. However:
– Justice Amy Coney Barrett has generally sided with conservative rulings but occasionally broke ranks (e.g., voting to uphold Biden’s immigration enforcement priorities) .
– Josh Hammer’s criticism of Barrett reflects frustration among some conservatives over her perceived moderation, but her decisions align with textualist principles in most cases .
—
###
The autopen is a legal tool presidents use for administrative efficiency, not a mechanism for bypassing authority. Biden’s executive actions and laws reflect his administration’s policies, with no evidence of unauthorized signatures. The Al Green censure and Democratic protest underscore Washington’s divisiveness but are unrelated to the autopen debate. Claims of a “shadow government” or demands for mass prosecutions lack factual basis.
