The White House has found itself at the centre of a new political storm after confirming that a machine, not President Joe Biden's own hand, signed the legislation commissioning former President Donald Trump's official portrait.
The revelation, which has ignited fury amongst Trump's allies, concerns the use of an autopen—a mechanical device used to replicate a signature—to authorise the funding for the traditional presidential painting.
A Tradition Mired in Modern Controversy
The commissioning of an official portrait for a departing president is a long-standing White House tradition, a symbolic gesture of respect and continuity of government. However, the process for President Trump's painting has become anything but traditional.
When questioned, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre defended the action, stating that the use of an autopen for such legislative matters is a standard and routine practice. She emphasised that the important factor was the bill was signed into law, not the method of signature.
The Trump Camp's Reaction
Predictably, the response from the former President's team was one of outrage. A spokesperson for Trump decried the move as a "petty and classless act" by the Biden administration, framing it as a deliberate sign of disrespect.
This incident taps into a deeper history of animosity between the two figures. Trump himself has previously criticised the use of autopens, questioning the validity of documents signed with them during previous administrations.
The Legal and Precedented Nature of Autopens
Despite the heated rhetoric, the White House's position is on solid ground legally and historically. The use of autopen devices by sitting presidents is well-documented and has been employed by multiple administrations for decades on a variety of documents, from correspondence to minor legislation.
The practice is seen as a practical necessity, allowing the immense volume of paperwork requiring the president's authorisation to be processed efficiently. The key legal principle is that the president authorises the use of the device, making the signature valid.
This modern controversy, blending historical tradition with technological convenience and political rivalry, underscores the intensely personal nature of contemporary American politics, where even the most procedural of acts can become a potent symbolic battleground.
