Republicans Uncover Alleged Misuse of Presidential Autopen in Biden Administration
Republican lawmakers and former Trump administration officials have raised serious concerns over what they claim is the improper use of the presidential autopen during the final months of President Joe Biden’s term. The controversy centers on whether key executive actions—including pardons and regulatory decisions—were actually authorized by Biden himself or rubber-stamped using a mechanical signature tool without his direct involvement.
The autopen, typically reserved for routine and non-urgent government documents, has suddenly become the focus of political debate. Critics allege it was used to authorize significant actions that should have required the President’s full attention. Former Trump advisor David Sacks has been vocal about these suspicions, suggesting that Senator Elizabeth Warren played a central role in influencing which documents were signed using the autopen, particularly those affecting cryptocurrency regulations. According to Sacks, Warren’s opposition to the crypto industry motivated her to push executive actions that would make it harder for the digital finance sector to operate within the U.S.
The situation escalated when it was revealed that some of Biden’s last actions in office, including a controversial round of pardons related to the January 6 select committee, were executed via autopen. Former President Trump harshly criticized this move, questioning not only the legal validity of such pardons but also Biden’s awareness of what was being signed. “How can he know what he’s signing if someone else is controlling the pen?” Trump asked in a speech at the Department of Justice. “This isn’t just disrespectful—it’s dangerous.”
The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has since launched a formal investigation into documents allegedly signed by the autopen. Preliminary findings suggest the device may have been used not just sporadically, but systematically, especially as Biden’s public appearances dwindled following the announcement of his intention not to seek re-election. On social media, the organization posted a bold statement: “WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY,” underscoring their belief that unelected individuals may have wielded unprecedented influence.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has also entered the fray, requesting testimony from multiple former Biden staffers and aides. He warned that subpoenas would be issued if these individuals did not voluntarily come forward within the week. Meanwhile, Ed Martin, head of the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group and Biden’s outgoing pardon attorney, confirmed that an internal inquiry is underway. According to Martin, a whistleblower has come forward with serious allegations, prompting several legal teams to be assembled.
The investigation aims to determine whether any laws were broken and who may have been behind the decisions made in Biden’s name. If the claims are substantiated, the implications could be far-reaching—not just for those directly involved but for the integrity of presidential authority itself. At stake is the question of whether the executive branch was, even temporarily, under the control of unelected officials using a mechanical proxy to push through major decisions without proper oversight or consent.
As the inquiry moves forward, the political fallout continues to grow. Legal experts are debating the constitutional implications of signing executive orders with an autopen, especially if the President was not actively engaged in those decisions. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are calling for greater transparency in how executive powers are wielded when a sitting president becomes less active or accessible. The final outcome could not only reshape the legacy of Biden’s presidency but also lead to new rules governing the use of presidential authority in times of transition or political uncertainty.