Picture this: you’re at a rally in the snowy hills of Pennsylvania, the crowd is roaring, and out of nowhere the president starts talking about an autopen potentially invalidating some of the most powerful people in global finance.
Yeah, that actually happened yesterday.
While most of us were wrapping up our Tuesday, President Trump took the stage in Mount Pocono and casually suggested that the four Federal Reserve board members appointed during the Biden years—including, he hinted, Chairman Jerome Powell himself—might have had their commissions signed not by a human hand, but by a machine.
And if that’s true, in Trump’s view at least, those appointments could be void.
The Moment Everyone Is Talking About
It wasn’t a prepared line from the teleprompter. It felt off-the-cuff, almost like he’d just seen something on his phone backstage and decided the crowd needed to hear it right then and there.
“By the way, it looks—you’re gonna have to check this, please—I just heard, it could be that all four commissioners in the Fed signed by Biden… I hear that the auto pen may have signed those commissions.”
— President Trump, December 9, 2025
He then turned to someone off-stage—later identified as Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent—and said, live on microphone, “Would you check that, Scott?”
The crowd loved it. The internet exploded. And financial Twitter hasn’t slept since.
First, What Exactly Is an Autopen?
For anyone who doesn’t spend their free time reading about presidential signature machines (so, most of us), an autopen is a mechanical device that replicates a person’s signature perfectly. Presidents have used them for decades—literally since Thomas Jefferson’s polygraph machine—to sign photos, letters, and routine documents when the volume is too high for human hands.
Barack Obama was the first to use one for legislation. Biden continued the practice. It’s convenient, it’s common, and until yesterday it was about as controversial as the White House Christmas card list.
But commissions for high officials? That’s a different story.
Why Commissions Are Supposed to Be Different
Here’s where things get legally murky—and honestly kind of fascinating.
Article II of the Constitution gives the president the power to appoint major officers “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Once confirmed, the president issues a commission—a formal document that serves as the official credential.
Historically, these commissions have been signed personally by the president. George Washington started the tradition. Every president since has followed it, at least for the big ones.
- Supreme Court justices get hand-signed commissions
- Cabinet secretaries get hand-signed commissions
- Ambassadors get hand-signed commissions
- Federal Reserve governors… well, that’s the question now
Trump’s argument—if it turns into a formal one—appears to be that using an autopen for a constitutional appointment crosses a line from convenience into invalidity.
Who Are the Four Appointments in Question?
Let’s put names to the controversy:
- Jerome Powell – Reappointed by Biden in 2021 (originally Trump’s pick in 2017)
- Philip Jefferson – Vice Chair, nominated 2023
- Michael Barr – Vice Chair for Supervision, 2022
- Lisa Cook – Governor, 2022
That’s four current voting members of the seven-person Board of Governors. If even one of them was autopen-signed and that somehow invalidates the appointment, it creates chaos for every decision the Fed has made in recent years.
Think about it: every interest rate vote since 2022 potentially becomes challengeable.
Has This Ever Been Tested in Court?
Short answer: no.
There is zero case law on whether an autopen commission is constitutionally valid. The closest we have is a 2005 Office of Legal Counsel opinion under George W. Bush that said autopens are fine for legislation but was silent on commissions.
In other words, this would be brand-new legal territory. And the Supreme Court we have today? They love brand-new constitutional territory.
Trump’s History with Jerome Powell
Let’s be honest—this isn’t really about autopens in a vacuum.
Trump has been publicly furious with Jerome Powell since 2018. He famously called Powell “Too Late” yesterday, a nickname he’s used before. He’s blamed Powell personally for everything from the 2018 market crash to slow rate cuts in 2024.
Trump picked Powell in his first term. Then watched as Powell raised rates aggressively to fight inflation that hit during the Biden years. From Trump’s perspective, he gave Powell the job and Powell repaid him with economic pain.
This autopen claim feels, to many observers, like the perfect off-ramp: a technicality that could let Trump remove Powell without having to prove “cause” under the Federal Reserve Act.
Market Reaction So Far
Wall Street is… nervous laughing?
As of Wednesday morning, Fed funds futures haven’t moved dramatically. Ten-year yields are up maybe three basis points. The VIX is quiet. It’s the kind of shrug that says “we’ve heard Trump threats about the Fed before.”
But underneath that calm, bond traders I talk to are quietly gaming out scenarios. If this actually goes to litigation and Powell’s vote gets questioned, every emergency lending facility decision from the last three years could be challenged. That’s not priced in anywhere.
What Happens Next?
Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent has been tasked—publicly—to “check” whether these commissions were autopen-signed.
The National Archives keeps the original commissions. They also keep records of how each was signed. That information isn’t secret; it’s just never been interesting before.
If the archives confirm autopen use, the administration has options:
- Do nothing and let it fade (unlikely)
- Issue new hand-signed commissions (the cleanest fix)
- Declare the old ones invalid and demand resignations (nuclear)
- Take it to court and create years of uncertainty (also nuclear)
My gut? If the autopen was used—and I suspect it probably was, given the volume of documents any modern president signs—they’ll quietly re-sign and move on. But not before using the controversy to pressure the Fed on rates.
The Bigger Picture for Fed Independence
I’ve been covering markets for fifteen years, and I can’t remember a time when the political pressure on the Federal Reserve felt this intense.
Central bank independence isn’t in the Constitution—it’s a norm we’ve built over a century. Norms can break. And when the president is openly questioning whether half the board is even legally seated, we’re testing how strong that norm really is.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect? Trump might be right that autopens shouldn’t be used for commissions. The practice probably did drift too far for convenience. But using that technicality as a weapon against a central bank you dislike? That sets a precedent future presidents will remember.
In my experience, markets hate uncertainty more than they hate high rates. If this escalates into a real fight over who actually sits on the FOMC, we’ll feel it in ways that go far beyond December 2025.
For now, grab your popcorn. The relationship between Pennsylvania rally crowds and the world’s most powerful central bank just got a lot more complicated.
And honestly? I wouldn’t bet against Scott Bessent coming back with an answer very, very soon.
