GOP Asks DOJ to Probe Biden Autopen Use to ‘Void’ Pardons, Other Actions
The House Oversight Committee has released a new report alleging that members of President Joe Biden’s administration relied extensively on an autopen — a device that reproduces a person’s signature — to authorize official documents during his time in office. Committee Chair James Comer is now urging the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate who approved the practice and how widely it may have been used, arguing that the matter raises questions about presidential decision-making and documentation.
The report spans roughly 100 pages and outlines what Republicans describe as an irregular approval process for official actions, including executive orders and presidential pardons. It asserts that senior aides “hid the truth” about Biden’s health and accuses his inner circle of shielding signs of cognitive decline. “Faced with the cognitive decline of President Joe Biden, White House aides — at the direction of the inner circle — hid the truth about the former president’s condition and fitness for office,” the report charged.
One of the core arguments in the document centers on clemency decisions, suggesting that inconsistent records make it unclear whether Biden personally reviewed or approved certain pardons. The report states, “In the absence of sufficient contemporaneous documentation indicating that cognitively deteriorating President Biden himself made a given executive decision, such decisions do not carry the force of law and should be considered void.”
Comer has called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to review every executive action taken during Biden’s term, with a particular emphasis on grants of clemency. He stated that the goal of the inquiry should be to determine whether autopen authorizations were properly issued and whether direct presidential involvement can be confirmed.
The Oversight Committee conducted 47 hours of testimony from 14 witnesses over three months, including several aides who worked closely with Biden. Comer said these interviews revealed what he described as conflicting accounts of how the autopen was used and who was responsible for applying the signature to legal documents.
The report concludes that more transparency is needed, setting the stage for a potential legal and constitutional dispute over presidential authorization.