White House staff may have signed off on sweeping executive actions—including mass pardons and commutations—using an autopen instead of President Biden’s own hand, raising explosive questions about who was actually running the country while the lights were (supposedly) on in the Oval Office.
At a Glance
- The House Oversight Committee is investigating whether Biden’s staff, not Biden himself, authorized mass pardons using an autopen.
- The controversy raises profound constitutional questions about whether the president’s personal pardon power can be delegated to staff and a machine.
- While autopens have been used by presidents for decades, their application to a core constitutional duty like clemency is unprecedented.
- The investigation has fueled a fierce battle over transparency, presidential capacity, and the integrity of executive authority.
A Power Too Personal to Delegate?
The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer, has launched an investigation into what could be a constitutional crisis: the mass issuance of presidential pardons in the final days of the Biden administration using an autopen, a mechanical signature device. The probe raises a fundamental question: can the president’s pardon power—one of his most personal and profound constitutional duties—be delegated to staff and executed by a machine?
The controversy exploded after it was revealed that then-President Biden had approved only broad “categories” of clemency cases, leaving the final sign-off to aides like his Chief of Staff, Jeff Zients. For critics, this represents a shocking abdication of presidential responsibility.
The Autopen: From Letters to Laws to Pardons
The use of an autopen by presidents is not new. Presidents since Harry Truman have used the device for routine tasks like signing letters. In 2011, President Obama controversially used an autopen to sign a bill into law while traveling abroad. However, its use for something as constitutionally significant as a pardon is seen by legal scholars as uncharted and dangerous territory.
The pardon power granted in Article II of the Constitution has always been understood as a personal act of executive discretion. For generations, presidents have signed each clemency warrant by hand, a tradition that underscores the gravity of the decision. The Biden White House’s alleged use of a machine to mass-produce this act of mercy is seen by many as a dangerous break from precedent.
The former president reportedly used the electronic device to sign some pardons in his final days in office. https://t.co/5xPBF73Gxc
— FOX 29 (@FOX29philly) July 14, 2025
An Unprecedented Constitutional Question
The investigation is more than a partisan soap opera; it’s a litmus test for the limits of executive authority. If White House staff can approve and execute pardons with minimal direct oversight from the president, what’s left of the principle that “the buck stops here”?
The refusal of key aides to testify has only fueled suspicions that the process was run by unelected bureaucrats, not the president himself. As the House Oversight Committee’s investigation continues, the nation is forced to confront a deeply unsettling question: In the modern administrative state, who is actually wielding the power of the presidency?
