Former President Donald Trump has initiated a campaign asserting that the autopen signatures of his predecessor, Joe Biden, are invalid. This declaration, made during the visit of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the White House on September 25, 2025, raises questions about the legitimacy of executive orders signed by Biden.
Trump took to social media, specifically Truth Social, to announce that documents signed by Biden with the autopen are “hereby terminated” and lack legal force. He stated that approximately 92% of Biden’s documents were signed using this method, claiming, “I am hereby cancelling all Executive Orders, and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden.” Trump further accused Biden of not being involved in the signing process, suggesting that if Biden claims he was, he could face charges of perjury.
Biden has vigorously denied these allegations, asserting that he was involved in all decision-making during his presidency. He characterized Trump’s assertions as unfounded, dismissing any suggestion of wrongdoing as a “cover-up.”
Trump’s fixation on the autopen dates back to earlier this year, when he argued that Biden’s reliance on the tool demonstrated a lack of control over his presidency. In March, he stated that Biden’s actions were “null and void” due to his use of the autopen. The former president has since called for an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Biden’s use of the device, linking it to his perceived cognitive decline.
The timing of Trump’s claims coincides with Erdogan’s first visit to the White House since 2019, during which discussions included the potential lifting of a ban on F-35 sales to Turkey. As the political landscape continues to shift, Trump’s remarks contribute to an already charged atmosphere surrounding Biden’s administration.
While Trump’s statements have garnered attention, it remains unclear which specific executive orders he is referencing and how he intends to execute this cancellation. The legal implications of his assertions are still being debated among political analysts and legal experts.
The exchange between the two former presidents underscores the ongoing tensions within American politics, highlighting the differing narratives surrounding governance and accountability. As both sides prepare for the upcoming political landscape, the implications of these claims will likely continue to unfold.
