By Daniel 
The debate over former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen to sign pardons has sparked a major political and legal fight. Trump and his allies claim the pardons are “invalid” because Biden didn’t physically sign them himself. But most legal experts disagree, saying the use of an autopen alone doesn’t make a pardon illegitimate.
The real issue isn’t the autopen—it’s whether Biden actually authorized these pardons. If they were issued without his knowledge or approval, that could create a real constitutional problem.
Autopen Use: Not a Big Deal
Using an autopen isn’t anything new. Presidents like Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, and Barack Obama all used autopens to sign official documents, including laws and executive orders. In fact, Obama even signed an extension of the Patriot Act with an autopen while he was overseas in 2011. Some questioned whether that violated the Constitution’s presentment clause, but the Department of Justice cleared it, saying a president can legally use an autopen as long as he approves it.
There’s also nothing in the Constitution that says a president has to physically sign pardons. History suggests it’s totally fine for the president to use an autopen.
So, the argument that Biden’s pardons are “void” just because of the autopen probably won’t hold up in court. Based on past rulings and legal opinions, they’re likely valid. But that doesn’t mean Biden is off the hook—there are still questions about whether he was actually behind these pardons or if they were issued without his direct approval.
This keeps the key points but makes it more conversational and engaging. Let me know if you’d like any tweaks!