WASHINGTON, DC – President Joe Biden is facing new scrutiny over his use of an autopen to finalize thousands of pardons and commutations during the final days of his term, after a New York Times report revealed that many clemency decisions were implemented by White House staff under broad categories previously approved by the president.
The report, published Monday, outlines how aides used an automated signature device – the autopen – to execute a wave of last-minute clemency actions. While Biden insisted in an interview that every decision was his own, the details suggest a level of administrative delegation that is uncommon in presidential history.
The categories reportedly included nonviolent federal drug offenders, elderly prisoners, and individuals who had served at least 15 years of long sentences with good behavior. Biden’s Chief of Staff Jeff Zients and White House Counsel Ed Siskel are said to have overseen the processing of the paperwork, with the president’s signature affixed by autopen due to time constraints and volume.
Oversight Committee Launches Investigation
Hours after the Times story was published, the Republican-led House Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. James Comer, announced a formal investigation into the matter. In a statement posted to X (formerly Twitter), the committee wrote:
The NYT quietly confirms Biden aides used the autopen to issue executive actions WITHOUT a clear sign he even approved them.”
The committee is seeking internal communications, staff directives, and testimony from both senior White House officials and Biden’s personal physician. Republicans have questioned whether the president was mentally and physically capable of exercising such sweeping clemency powers on his own.
Some critics have gone further, suggesting that Biden’s use of the autopen without personally reviewing each individual case may render the pardons legally questionable.
Not Without Precedent, But Without Parallel
The use of the autopen is not new to the presidency. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama used it for routine documents, and Obama’s Department of Justice confirmed its legality in 2011. However, using it at such scale – and in the context of criminal clemency – appears to be unprecedented.
The U.S. Constitution grants the president broad authority to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,” with no requirement that each pardon be personally signed in ink. What matters, legal scholars say, is that the action is authorized by the president – not necessarily that the president executed every physical document by hand.
A Legally Permissible Process?
If President Biden approved specific categories of offenders to receive clemency and instructed his staff to process those decisions accordingly, the use of the autopen – while novel in volume – would still fall within the constitutional scope of his executive authority.
While this method has never been used at such scale, the key legal test is whether the president made the decision,” said one constitutional analyst. “If so, the use of an autopen to execute that intent is likely valid.”
Still, the political fallout may grow. With oversight hearings and possible legal challenges looming, the clemency controversy is poised to become another flashpoint in the broader debate over executive authority and the president’s mental fitness.
As of this writing, the White House has not announced plans to revise or rescind any of the pardons or commutations signed using the autopen.
Q&A: Biden’s Autopen Clemency Controversy Explained
Q: What exactly did President Biden do that sparked controversy?
President Biden authorized thousands of pardons and commutations during his final days in office. However, instead of signing each document by hand, the White House used an autopen—a mechanical device that replicates a person’s signature—to finalize them. The concern is that not all individual cases may have been personally reviewed by the president.
Q: Is using an autopen for clemency even legal?
Yes—there is precedent for using the autopen for official presidential actions. In 2011, the Department of Justice ruled that the autopen could be used to sign legislation if the president authorized it. The same principle likely applies here: if Biden personally authorized the decisions, the method of execution (autopen) is legally valid.
Q: Did Biden personally review each clemency request?
According to the New York Times, Biden approved broad categories of eligible offenders—such as nonviolent drug offenders or elderly inmates—but did not sign off on every individual name. Staff carried out the process based on those categories.
Q: Why is this drawing political scrutiny now?
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee argue that Biden’s use of the autopen may indicate he wasn’t mentally fit to carry out his duties or that staff may have overstepped his authority. They’ve launched an investigation and are requesting documents, emails, and testimony.
Q: Has any president done this before?
Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama used the autopen for routine approvals, including signing bills into law. However, this is believed to be the first time it was used to implement mass clemency actions, which is why it’s drawing new legal and political attention.
Q: Could the pardons be challenged in court?
It’s possible, but unlikely to succeed if the administration can prove that Biden authorized the process. The Constitution gives the president wide discretion in issuing pardons, and courts typically don’t interfere unless there’s clear evidence of fraud or unlawful delegation.
Q: What is the Oversight Committee seeking now?
The Committee is demanding internal White House communications, records of Biden’s involvement, and testimony from aides and even the president’s physician. They’re focused on determining whether Biden was actively involved—or whether staffers executed decisions without proper authority.
Q: What’s the legal bottom line?
If Biden did in fact authorize the categories of clemency recipients—even if aides executed the paperwork via autopen—then the clemency actions are almost certainly constitutionally valid. However, the optics and precedent are what make this politically explosive.
