Joe Biden’s final act as president raises serious questions about accountability. The former president has admitted to not individually approving many of the pardons issued under his name via an autopen in the waning months of his term.
According to Breitbart, Biden issued four large sets of pardons, including three categorical clemency actions that covered vast numbers of individuals, without personally reviewing each name.
This isn’t just a procedural hiccup; it’s a window into how power was wielded. Biden reportedly set criteria for these pardons, but left the final list to staff, who used an autopen to sign off. One has to wonder if this detachment reflects a broader trend of disengagement from the responsibilities of leadership.
Biden and his aides confirmed he didn’t sign off on each individual pardon. Instead, after discussing possible standards, he approved guidelines for who would qualify for clemency. But guidelines aren’t signatures, and delegating such a profound act of mercy—or politics—feels like a shortcut.
Even after Biden’s criteria were set, adjustments kept coming. The Bureau of Prisons provided ongoing updates about specific inmates, leading to tweaks in the list. Rather than revisit Biden for each change, staff opted for the autopen, calling it “routine”—a term that hardly fits the gravity of pardoning convicts.
Emails among Biden’s team reveal the process’s inner workings. Then-White House staff secretary Stefanie Feldman managed the autopen, ensuring written documentation of Biden’s instructions, while top advisers like Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients and counsel Ed Siskel relayed his wishes. It’s a tidy chain of command, but one that conveniently bypasses the man at the top.
On January 19, the day before leaving office, Zients personally approved a last-minute draft summary for pardons. Emails show him hitting “reply all” to confirm the autopen’s use for executing these clemency actions. Such casual sign-off on a profound presidential power seems almost cavalier.
“I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons,” Zients wrote, per the report. If a chief of staff can greenlight something this weighty, what exactly was the president’s role? It’s hard not to see this as a troubling abdication of duty.
The process, as described, involved assistants drafting accounts reviewed by senior advisers. These documents eventually reached Feldman, who ensured everything was in writing. But written records don’t mask the fact that Biden himself wasn’t in the final loop—a glaring oversight for an act as significant as clemency.
These revelations come amid ongoing concerns about Biden’s cognitive sharpness during his presidency. The use of an autopen for mass pardons only fuels doubts about whether he was fully engaged in key decisions. For many, this isn’t just about procedure; it’s about trust in governance.
Three of the four pardon sets were broad, categorical actions affecting large groups. Biden’s team insists he set the standards, but letting staff finalize the list without his direct input smells of bureaucratic overreach. When did “routine procedure” become a stand-in for presidential responsibility?
The timing—right at the end of his term—adds another layer of skepticism. Was this a rush to clear slates, or a calculated move to avoid scrutiny? Either way, it’s a disservice to those who expect a president to personally weigh such monumental decisions.
From a conservative lens, this saga underscores a pattern of elite detachment from consequence. While Biden’s team may argue this was efficient, it sidesteps the personal accountability Americans deserve from their leaders. Progressives might call it pragmatic, but pragmatism shouldn’t trump principle.
Yet, there’s room for empathy here as well. Leading a nation is no small burden, and Biden’s age and health have been public talking points. Still, if the job’s demands outweigh one’s capacity, delegation shouldn’t mean dodging the final call on something as sacred as a pardon.
Ultimately, this autopen affair leaves a bitter taste. It’s not just about who signed what—it’s about whether the presidency itself was fully present. Americans, regardless of political stripe, should demand more from those entrusted with such power.
