A fresh wave of political intrigue has emerged following revelations that former President Joe Biden used an autopen device to authorize a number of executive orders and pardons during the final months of his presidency. The use of this technology — which mechanically replicates a signature — has sparked debate about the legitimacy and awareness behind several key decisions made in Biden’s name.

Former President Donald Trump responded publicly and forcefully, calling the use of an autopen in such critical matters “deeply problematic” and questioning whether Biden had full understanding or involvement in the pardons and authorizations made during his term’s closing chapter.

In a lengthy post on his social platform, Trump claimed that the decisions made via autopen — including the controversial pardoning of several high-profile individuals — were not valid if Biden neither reviewed nor approved them directly. He suggested that if aides acted independently, legal consequences could follow for those involved.

While the use of an autopen is not unprecedented — presidents from both parties have employed it under certain circumstances — the concern now hinges on whether it was used appropriately, and more importantly, whether President Biden was cognitively capable of approving such actions during the period in question.

The controversy stems not from the device itself, but from the surrounding context. Reports have circulated that President Biden had shown increasing signs of cognitive and physical decline in the last year of his presidency. This has raised concerns over whether he was actively involved in decisions bearing his name — or if key staffers were acting on his behalf without direct instruction.

White House officials previously defended the use of the autopen, stating that every document signed through the device had been fully reviewed and approved by President Biden. Yet critics argue that this defense falls short if the former president was not in a position to make informed decisions, especially concerning matters as sensitive as executive pardons and national security directives.

Among the controversial pardons now under scrutiny are those granted to prominent political and government figures — sparking legal and ethical questions. Trump, in his remarks, declared such pardons “null and void” on the grounds that they were not personally signed by the president in full mental command of the decisions.

In response to the mounting concerns, Trump also moved swiftly to revoke the security clearances of numerous former officials. In a formal memo, he named several former government leaders and advisors whose access to classified information would be rescinded, including members of Biden’s administration, allies in Congress, and Biden himself.

Trump cited national security as the driving force behind the move, emphasizing the importance of limiting sensitive information access to individuals currently in active, secure roles — particularly in light of what he called Biden’s “diminished capacity.”

“The precedent was set in 2021 when my own briefings were cut off,” Trump wrote, referencing the prior administration’s decision to end intelligence briefings for him shortly after Biden took office. “I am simply following the same standard.”

The revocations and questions surrounding the autopen signings have stirred debate among legal scholars. While many acknowledge that the autopen is legally acceptable in certain executive actions, the issue becomes murkier if there is evidence that the president was unaware of what was being signed. Intention, awareness, and authorization are all central to the legal strength of executive orders and pardons.

As discussions unfold, attention has also returned to the findings of Special Counsel Robert Hur. His earlier report, which examined Biden’s handling of classified documents, described the former president as showing “significant memory lapses” and painted a picture of a leader whose cognitive sharpness had diminished notably. Though Hur did not recommend criminal charges, the report has added weight to ongoing questions about Biden’s mental fitness during his final months in office.

The situation has become a flashpoint in ongoing political and legal tension, with both supporters and critics watching closely. While Biden’s defenders argue that autopen use is not inherently irregular, others are calling for a deeper inquiry into whether it was used appropriately — and whether the president was mentally capable of approving the actions taken in his name.

As both legal experts and political commentators debate the implications, one thing remains clear: the simple act of signing a document — even by machine — has taken on a weighty symbolism in the wider conversation about power, responsibility, and accountability in the highest office.

Whether the matter escalates into formal investigations or legal proceedings remains to be seen. For now, the autopen has become more than a tool of convenience — it’s become the center of a mystery about who was really behind the pen.