The people who operated the autopen did so illegally
En el cruce entre el poder ejecutivo y la legitimidad constitucional, Donald Trump ha declarado nulos los decretos firmados por Joe Biden mediante un dispositivo autopen, argumentando que su uso revela una incapacidad mental para gobernar. La historia del derecho estadounidense, sin embargo, reconoce desde hace décadas la validez de estas firmas mecánicas, y expertos legales advierten que la autoridad presidencial tiene límites precisos que ni siquiera un sucesor puede traspasar. Lo que está en juego no es solo la validez de unos documentos, sino la pregunta más profunda sobre quién define los contornos del poder ejecutivo y bajo qué condiciones.
- Trump declaró nulos aproximadamente el 92% de los decretos de Biden, alegando que la firma mecánica prueba que Biden no controlaba realmente el gobierno.
- La medida genera una tensión jurídica inmediata: los expertos señalan que el autopen tiene respaldo constitucional desde 2005 y fue usado por Obama en 2011 sin impugnación alguna.
- El verdadero punto de conflicto son los indultos que Biden otorgó en sus últimos días, incluyendo a figuras que Trump ha señalado como adversarios, pues revocar un indulto presidencial es terreno jurídico casi inexplorado.
- Analistas como Ed Whelan distinguen entre lo que Trump puede hacer —revocar decretos ejecutivos— y lo que no puede: anular leyes promulgadas o indultos concedidos bajo el mismo argumento.
- Los tribunales serán el árbitro final: si aceptan la teoría de Trump, se abrirá un precedente que permitiría cuestionar actos presidenciales por la mecánica de su ejecución, no por su contenido.
Donald Trump anunció que invalidará todos los decretos ejecutivos que Joe Biden firmó mediante un autopen, un dispositivo mecánico que reproduce la firma presidencial. Según Trump, cerca del 92% de las órdenes de Biden fueron firmadas de esta manera, lo que él interpreta como evidencia de que Biden no tenía capacidad mental para gobernar y que quienes operaban la máquina lo hacían ilegalmente.
Sin embargo, el terreno legal que Trump pretende ocupar es inestable. El Departamento de Justicia estableció en 2005 que un presidente no necesita firmar documentos de su puño y letra, y Barack Obama utilizó el autopen en 2011 para promulgar una ley desde Europa sin que nadie lo impugnara. Los expertos constitucionales reconocen que Trump puede revocar decretos ejecutivos de su predecesor, pero advierten que no tiene la misma autoridad para anular leyes promulgadas o indultos concedidos, independientemente del método de firma.
El trasfondo político es revelador: en sus últimos días en el cargo, Biden indultó a su hijo, a legisladores que investigaron a Trump, a un general retirado crítico del expresidente y al principal experto en salud pública del país durante la pandemia. La ofensiva de Trump contra el autopen podría ser, en parte, un intento de deshacer esos actos de clemencia, aunque el camino jurídico para lograrlo es, en el mejor de los casos, incierto.
Hay también una ironía silenciosa en todo esto: Trump, de 79 años, cuestiona la capacidad mental de Biden, de 82, por delegar la firma en una máquina. Lo que los tribunales decidan determinará si este argumento tiene peso legal o si quedará como un gesto simbólico en la larga disputa entre dos visiones del poder presidencial.
Donald Trump announced on Friday that he intends to nullify every executive order signed by his predecessor Joe Biden using an autopen machine—a mechanical device that reproduces a president's signature. Trump claims approximately 92 percent of Biden's orders were signed this way, and he has declared them void, stripped of legal force and effect.
The legal ground Trump is staking out is unusual. He argues that the use of a signing machine proves Biden was mentally unfit to govern and did not actually control the White House. In posts on his Truth Social platform, Trump stated that any document Biden signed with the autopen "is hereby nullified and without force or effect," and he added that he was canceling all executive orders and anything else not signed directly by Biden himself, claiming the people who operated the machine did so illegally.
But constitutional scholars and legal experts are skeptical that Trump possesses this power. Ed Whelan, a legal analyst, noted on social media that Trump is indeed free to revoke any executive order his predecessor issued, regardless of how it was signed. However, Whelan added, Trump does not have the same latitude to invalidate "anything" Biden ordered signed by autopen—particularly laws that were enacted or pardons that were granted. The distinction matters: a president can revoke his own executive orders or those of a predecessor, but the authority to undo laws or pardons is far more constrained.
The use of autopen machines by American presidents is not new or legally questionable. In 2005, the Department of Justice issued guidance stating that a president need not sign legislation by hand and may instead direct a staff member to place the presidential signature on a document using a mechanical device. Barack Obama became the first president to use an autopen to sign a law while traveling in Europe in 2011, setting a precedent that went unchallenged. Multiple presidents have employed various systems to sign documents over the decades.
Biden was 82 years old when he left office. Trump, now 79, will complete his term in January 2029. The age and fitness questions that Trump is raising about Biden's use of the autopen carry an ironic undertone given Trump's own age, though Trump has not acknowledged this parallel.
In his final days in office, Biden issued pardons to several figures who had been targets of Trump's criticism. These included his own son, members of Congress who had investigated Trump, a retired general who had spoken against him, and the nation's leading COVID-19 expert. Trump's move to invalidate Biden's orders may be partly motivated by a desire to undo these acts of clemency, though the legal pathway to do so through the autopen argument remains unclear.
What remains to be seen is whether courts will accept Trump's theory that the signing method itself provides grounds for invalidation. If they do, it would establish a new precedent for challenging executive actions based on the mechanics of their execution rather than their substance. If they reject it, Trump's announcement will amount to little more than a symbolic gesture—one that underscores the ongoing tension between two administrations and two visions of presidential power.
Notable Quotes
Trump stated that any document Biden signed with the autopen is hereby nullified and without force or effect, and claimed the people operating the machine acted illegally.— Donald Trump, via Truth Social
Trump is free to revoke any executive order regardless of signing method, but does not have the same authority to invalidate laws or pardons Biden ordered signed by autopen.— Ed Whelan, legal analyst
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Trump focus on how Biden signed the orders rather than what the orders actually do?
Because it's a way to challenge the legitimacy of the entire Biden presidency. If he can argue Biden wasn't really in control, that someone else was operating the machinery, then everything Biden did becomes suspect—not just the policy, but the authority itself.
But hasn't every president used machines to sign things?
Yes. Obama did it in 2011, and the Justice Department blessed the practice back in 2005. So there's no legal novelty here. Trump is trying to create one.
Can he actually void those orders?
For executive orders, probably yes—presidents have broad power to revoke their predecessors' orders. But for laws and pardons, it's much murkier. Those aren't his to undo just because of how they were signed.
So the pardons Biden issued—his son, the COVID expert—those might be safe?
Legally, they should be. A pardon is a constitutional act. You can't invalidate it because of the signature method. But Trump could try, and then it goes to court.
What does this really signal?
That Trump sees the autopen as a vulnerability he can exploit. It's not really about the machine. It's about painting Biden as absent, incapacitated, not truly president. And it sets up a fight over what counts as a valid presidential act.