Legislation Aims to Ban Autopen Use for Presidential Pardons Following Trump’s Criticism of Biden

FIRST ON FOX: A House Republican is spearheading a legislative effort that seeks to address concerns regarding the use of autopen technology for signing presidential pardons. This initiative comes in the wake of former President Donald Trump’s assertion that President Joe Biden’s pardons are “void” due to their alleged autopen signatures.

Representative Buddy Carter, a Republican from Georgia, plans to introduce the Signature Integrity for Granting National Pardons (SIGN) Act. This bill mandates that only a sitting president can personally sign any pardon or reprieve, effectively prohibiting the use of mechanical signature devices, such as the autopen.

In a statement shared with Fox News Digital, Carter expressed his concerns about Biden’s signing practices. He stated that Biden’s use of autopen technology should invalidate his presidential pardons. Carter emphasized that the SIGN Act would restore the integrity of pardons within the justice system, ensuring that all pardons receive a personal signature from the Commander-in-Chief.

The Context Behind the Legislative Move

This Republican-led initiative follows Trump’s vocal criticisms of Biden’s last-minute pardons. Trump previously labeled these pardons as “vacant”. He suggested that Biden signed them without proper oversight, raising questions about the authenticity of such actions and broader implications concerning presidential duties.

On social media, Trump commented, stating that Biden’s use of an autopen raises concerns about who was running the country during his administration. Trump questioned the effectiveness of Biden’s leadership if he outsourced critical constitutional responsibilities to mechanical devices and staff, hinting at a lack of direct involvement.

What the SIGN Act Entails

The proposed SIGN Act aims to explicitly ban the use of autopen signatures for presidential pardons. The legislation reflects growing skepticism around the use of technology in governance, particularly concerning formal and significant decisions such as granting pardons.

Biden’s signing of various official documents using autopen has emerged as a controversial subject. A report from a Heritage Foundation affiliate indicated that many documents Biden signed during his administration reportedly contained autopen signatures.

Trump’s Claims on the Pardons

This legislative push by Carter aligns with Trump’s narrative, where he claimed that Biden was unaware of the pardons he issued shortly before leaving office. Among those pardoned were individuals involved in congressional investigations surrounding the January 6 Capitol riot.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump declared these pardons as “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT” due to their alleged execution via autopen. He further asserted that Biden did not possess any real knowledge of these pardoning decisions, implying negligence on Biden’s part and raising doubts about the integrity of the pardoning authority.

Calls for Investigations and Accountability

Further complicating the narrative, an energy watchdog group named Power the Future has called for an investigation into Biden’s signing practices. The group urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to explore whether Biden signed energy-related executive orders using an autopen and whether those actions occurred with Biden’s full awareness.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel stated in 2005 that the president is allowed to use an autopen when signing legislation into law. Moreover, a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit noted that the absence of a traditional signature does not inherently prove that a commutation has not taken place.

The Broader Implications of Technology in Governance

The ongoing debate surrounding the use of autopen in presidential duties highlights a broader concern about delegation in governance. Critics argue that relying on technology, particularly for significant legal and constitutional tasks, may undermine the accountability and transparency expected from elected officials.

Carter’s proposed legislation could reshape the landscape of presidential pardons, emphasizing personal accountability over technological convenience. Supporters of the measure argue that physical signatures represent a fundamental aspect of trust in the legal system, particularly concerning the exercise of presidential power.

As the political landscape evolves, it remains to be seen how the SIGN Act will fare in Congress. Given the contentious nature of partisan politics, the fate of this legislation could hinge on broader negotiations surrounding executive authority and the governance of pivotal state functions.

The White House has not yet responded to inquiries regarding Biden’s signing practices or the implications of the proposed SIGN Act. As the landscape of executive actions remains under scrutiny, the developments surrounding this legislation could significantly impact future presidential pardoning decisions.

Fox News’ Diana Stancy, Andrew Mark Miller, and Emma Colton contributed to this report.