A Missouri pharmacist has publicly questioned the authenticity of President Joe Biden’s autopen signature on official documents, suggesting it may be a forgery. This observation was first shared with The Gateway Pundit in February 2021, just weeks after Biden took office.
The pharmacist, who has decades of experience identifying forged signatures in his profession, noted that several of Biden’s Executive Orders initially did not appear in the Federal Register but later did. Upon reviewing these, he noticed discrepancies in Biden’s signature.
“As a pharmacist, I routinely verify doctor’s signatures to prevent forgery,” he explained. “I believe Joe Biden’s autopen signature may not be genuine. The last three signatures I reviewed from separate Executive Orders are identical—typical of a stamp—but they do not match Biden’s known authentic signature.” The pharmacist speculated that Jill Biden might have signed for her husband using the autopen device, pointing to differences in the way the letter “B” is formed in the signatures.
In a follow-up statement in June 2025, the pharmacist reiterated his belief that none of the autopen signatures during Biden’s presidency were authentic. He contrasted these with Biden’s live signature on his July 2024 resignation letter and the pardon of Hunter Biden, which he deemed genuine despite some shakiness.
“I have spent over 50 years examining handwritten signatures and have never seen such a wholesale change and subsequent reversion to an original signature,” he said. “Facsimile signature laws require authenticity for binding legal documents, and a forgery would invalidate those documents.”
The pharmacist encouraged handwriting experts to review the signatures and noted that the implications of a forged presidential signature could be legally significant, especially since oral pardons have precedent but cannot replace signed approvals on laws and executive orders.
Despite the pharmacist’s concerns, this issue has not gained significant public or legal attention. He suggested that the complexity and potential consequences of the claim might explain the lack of scrutiny.