Written by Daniel Matthews.
A startling revelation has emerged regarding the use of an autopen to affix former President Joe Biden’s signature on critical executive orders and clemency warrants, raising profound questions about the legitimacy of his administration’s actions. The Oversight Project, a watchdog initiative, has uncovered evidence suggesting that Biden’s reliance on autopen signatures increased as his mental and physical health reportedly declined, prompting scrutiny over who wielded authority in the White House. This controversy, centered on the use of mechanical signatures for politically charged decisions, has ignited a national debate about transparency, accountability, and the integrity of presidential power.
Unveiling the Autopen Controversy
The Oversight Project’s recent analysis revealed that nearly all documents bearing Biden’s signature, except for his 2024 election withdrawal announcement, were signed using an autopen—a device that mechanically replicates a person’s signature. This practice, while not unprecedented, became particularly contentious as it was applied to executive orders and clemency warrants with significant political and legal implications. The group’s findings indicate that Biden used wet signatures (hand-signed) for all executive orders during his first 18 months in office, but by mid-2022, the autopen became the default method, coinciding with reports of his declining health.
The autopen’s use is not inherently illegal; presidents since Harry Truman have employed such devices for efficiency, particularly for routine correspondence. However, the scale and context of Biden’s autopen use—encompassing sensitive national security and public health directives—have raised alarms. The Oversight Project’s data shows that of 51 clemency warrants issued during Biden’s presidency, 32 were signed with one of two autopen variants, labeled Autopen A and Autopen B, distinguished by subtle differences in the spacing and formation of Biden’s signature.
For many Americans, this revelation evokes concerns about who truly held decision-making power in the White House. The idea that a mechanical device, potentially operated without direct presidential oversight, could authorize actions affecting millions is deeply unsettling, particularly when applied to matters as grave as pardons for serious crimes or sanctions on foreign nations.
Politically Charged Actions Under Scrutiny
The Oversight Project highlighted several executive orders signed via autopen that carry significant political weight, amplifying concerns about the lack of direct presidential involvement. For instance, Executive Order 14097, issued on April 27, 2023, authorized the activation of the Ready Reserve to combat international drug trafficking, a move that expanded emergency powers to address a national security threat. Similarly, Executive Order 14114, signed on December 22, 2023, imposed sanctions on Russia’s military-industrial base, reinforcing U.S. foreign policy against Russian aggression.
Other notable orders include Executive Order 14118, which terminated a national emergency regarding Zimbabwe on March 4, 2024, and Executive Order 14122, issued on April 12, 2024, which restructured public health preparedness by transferring responsibilities to the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy. Additionally, Executive Order 14130, signed on December 20, 2024, amended the Manual for Courts-Martial to align with legislative changes, impacting military justice procedures. Each of these orders, signed with an autopen, addressed critical issues that typically demand direct presidential scrutiny.
The clemency warrants are equally troubling. The Oversight Project reported that Biden’s administration granted clemency to 4,245 individuals, including 37 federal death row inmates convicted of heinous murders, an individual who killed two FBI agents, and others accused of supporting Iran militarily. High-profile figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and members of the House January 6 Committee also received pardons, all via autopen. This extensive use of mechanical signatures for such consequential decisions has fueled speculation about whether Biden was fully aware of or authorized these actions.
Questions of Authority and Accountability
A central issue in this controversy is who controlled the autopen and whether its use was properly authorized. Reports suggest that a key Biden aide, potentially White House Staff Secretary Neera Tanden, may have played a significant role in managing the autopen process. Tanden, who joined the administration after withdrawing her nomination as Office of Management and Budget Director, was allegedly involved in signing documents, including pardons, while Biden was away, such as during a golf trip in the U.S. Virgin Islands. An insider described this aide as wielding immense influence, with some staffers viewing them as the de facto president.
The Oversight Project’s findings have prompted former President Donald Trump to denounce Biden’s autopen-signed actions, calling for those responsible to face legal consequences. Trump has argued that the pardons, particularly those for January 6 Committee members, are invalid due to the autopen’s use, claiming Biden lacked knowledge of the documents. While legal scholars note that the Constitution does not require a president to hand-sign pardons and that autopen use is supported by precedent, the lack of transparency about who authorized these signatures raises ethical concerns.
The historical context of autopen use provides some perspective. Presidents like Thomas Jefferson used early mechanical devices, such as the polygraph, to replicate signatures, and modern autopens have been standard since the 1950s. Barack Obama notably used an autopen to sign the Patriot Act extension in 2011 while abroad, relying on a 2005 Justice Department memo affirming its legality for bills. However, the Biden administration’s apparent reliance on autopens for nearly all significant actions, combined with concerns about his mental capacity, distinguishes this case from prior instances.
Our Take
The revelation of widespread autopen use in the Biden administration is a troubling development that undermines public trust in the presidency. While the autopen itself is a longstanding tool, its application to politically sensitive executive orders and clemency warrants—without clear evidence of Biden’s direct authorization—raises serious questions about governance and accountability. The Oversight Project’s analysis exposes a potential vulnerability in the executive branch, where aides may wield unchecked power under the guise of routine processes.
This controversy demands a thorough investigation into who controlled the autopen and whether Biden was fully informed of the actions taken in his name. The American public deserves assurance that decisions affecting national security, public health, and justice reflect the president’s intent, not the discretion of unelected staffers. As debates over executive authority continue, this episode serves as a stark reminder of the need for transparency and robust oversight to safeguard the integrity of democratic institutions.
