In recent months, the use of the autopen—a mechanical device that replicates a person’s signature—by President Joe Biden has sparked significant controversy. Critics argue that this practice raises serious concerns about the autonomy of the President and the integrity of executive actions.

Former President Donald Trump has been vocal in his criticism, labeling the use of the autopen as “the biggest scandal in American history” since the 2020 election. He contends that the autopen enables unidentified individuals to authorize controversial government policies without the direct consent of the President, thereby questioning the authenticity and legitimacy of executive actions taken during Biden’s administration.

The core of the issue lies in the principle that the President, as the elected representative of the people, must personally approve and be accountable for executive decisions. The use of an autopen, especially without clear evidence of the President’s direct involvement, undermines this principle and raises questions about who truly holds the reins of power.

Legal experts have weighed in on the matter, noting that while the use of the autopen has precedent, its application in significant decisions—such as pardons—requires careful scrutiny. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has previously opined that the President may direct a subordinate to affix his signature using an autopen, provided the decision to sign has been made by the President himself.

However, the lack of transparency surrounding the use of the autopen in the current administration has led to calls for greater accountability. The American people deserve assurance that their President is actively engaged in the decision-making process and that executive actions reflect the will of the electorate, not the agendas of unelected staff or external interests.

Moreover, the increased reliance on the autopen toward the end of President Biden’s term has raised even deeper concerns about his mental and cognitive fitness. Numerous public appearances, marked by confusion, misstatements, and visible fatigue, have led many Americans to question whether the President was truly capable of exercising his duties in full possession of his mental faculties. If the Commander-in-Chief is not fully aware of what he is signing—let alone directing others to use a mechanical device to simulate his authorization—then the legitimacy of those actions must be called into question. No democratic republic can function when the authority of its highest office is delegated to unelected aides and silent bureaucrats. The American people elect a President, not a committee. It is not only a constitutional crisis—it is a betrayal of the sacred trust between the people and their government.

In conclusion, while technology can aid in the efficiency of governmental operations, it must not come at the expense of democratic principles and presidential accountability. The use of the autopen in critical decisions warrants thorough examination to ensure that the President remains the true servant of the people, as intended by the Constitution.