The Biden administration’s prolific use of an autopen to sign critical documents, including executive orders and pardons, has ignited a firestorm of controversy, raising serious questions about who truly wielded power during Joe Biden’s presidency. Reports from the Oversight Project, a Heritage Foundation arm, reveal that nearly every document bearing Biden’s signature—except his 2024 campaign withdrawal letter—used an identical autopen signature, casting doubt on his mental acuity and control over the executive branch. Most alarmingly, new reporting highlights a glaring absence: the required accompanying signatures from subordinates authorizing autopen use, a safeguard to ensure presidential intent. This omission fuels accusations of a constitutional crisis, with unelected staffers potentially orchestrating policy behind a façade of Biden’s approval.
The Oversight Project identified 45 executive orders signed by autopen, including key actions like the August 2022 student loan forgiveness order and the December 2024 energy export pause, which House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed Biden was unaware of signing. Additionally, 17 sweeping pardons issued on January 19, 2025, including preemptive clemency for the January 6 Committee, Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and Hunter Biden, bear the same autopen signature. Notably, Hunter Biden’s pardon signature appeared “shaky,” suggesting a rare handwritten exception, while others lacked the mandatory subordinate authorization, rendering their legitimacy questionable. Other controversial signatures include routine correspondence and a 2022 Ukraine aid package, where the White House went to great lengths to claim Biden signed in person, yet autopen evidence persists.
Grave accusations have surfaced that presidential pardons may have been sold by administration insiders. Posts on X and reports from conservative outlets like Blaze Media allege that staffers, including White House Staff Secretary Neera Tanden and Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, controlled the autopen, potentially bypassing Biden’s knowledge or consent. A hidden-camera video from OMG reportedly caught SBA advisor Tyler Robinson admitting Zients oversaw autopen use, suggesting staffers “rubber-stamped” pardons and orders. Speculation also swirls around Hunter Biden and Jill Biden’s influence, with Heritage attorney Samuel Dewey noting Hunter’s pardon as a possible insider deal. These claims, while unproven, amplify concerns of corruption, with Missouri AG Andrew Bailey demanding a DOJ probe into whether unelected aides pushed radical policies under Biden’s name.
Evidence points to a shadow administration led by figures like Tanden, Zients, and possibly Jill Biden, with House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer alleging staffers made decisions without Biden’s coherent input. Speaker Johnson’s 2024 encounter with Biden, where the former president seemed unaware of signing a natural gas export pause, underscores claims of a presidency run by aides. The Oversight Project’s findings suggest these staffers swapped between “Autopen A” and “B” to push through midnight directives, evading accountability.
Legal experts, including Jeffrey Crouch, affirm that autopen signatures are valid if authorized, but the Constitution requires the president’s intent. The absence of subordinate signatures and Biden’s reported cognitive decline—evidenced by public gaffes and Johnson’s testimony—raise doubts about his awareness. While the 2005 DOJ memo permits autopen use for bills, no such clarity exists for pardons, and the 4th Circuit’s 2024 ruling notes pardons need not be written, yet intent is paramount.
This scandal demands urgent investigation. Congress must subpoena Tanden, Zients, and others to determine who controlled the autopen and whether Biden knowingly authorized these actions. If pardons were sold or issued without presidential consent, they must be voided. The American people deserve transparency to ensure no unelected cabal usurped the presidency, undermining democracy itself.
