President Donald Trump has reignited a firestorm over former President Joe Biden's reliance on an autopen to sign thousands of pardons, calling the practice a legal sham.
According to Fox News, Trump accused Biden of being unaware of the documents he authorized through the automated device, suggesting a troubling lack of oversight. The charge raises serious questions about accountability in the highest office.
Trump didn't hold back during a recent trip to the U.K., telling reporters the autopen's use was outright "illegal." He pointedly remarked, "He never gave the orders," implying Biden was detached from critical decisions, perhaps even unaware of what crossed his desk.
Trump's critique centers on Biden's staggering 4,245 acts of clemency, with 96% issued in the final months of his term between October 2024 and January 2025, per Pew Research Center data. The sheer volume, paired with automated signatures, fuels suspicion about the legitimacy of these actions.
An autopen, for those unfamiliar, is a machine that mimics a person's signature by physically holding a pen and following programmed patterns. Unlike a mere stamp, it can use various pens, from ballpoints to markers, creating a deceptively authentic look.
This technology, while efficient, opens a Pandora's box when applied to binding legal acts like pardons. If a president isn't personally signing, who truly holds the power behind the pen?
Reports from the New York Times reveal that Biden's chief of staff, Jeff Zients, gave final approval for high-profile preemptive pardons, including those for Anthony Fauci and Gen. Mark Milley. While Biden reportedly decided on these in a meeting, the delegation to Zients for autopen authorization muddies the waters of responsibility.
Biden, for his part, insisted to the Times that every clemency choice was his own. Yet, when thousands of pardons bear a machine's mark, that claim feels like a hollow defense against the optics of disengagement.
Meanwhile, Trump admitted to using an autopen for letters but stressed he signs every legally binding document by hand, per a White House official. The contrast paints a picture of deliberate care versus what looks like a rushed, automated spree.
Zients is set to face the House Oversight Committee over these issues, with the probe also examining Biden's mental acuity during his term. Part of the investigation zeroes in on whether the former president fully understood the executive actions and pardons he authorized via autopen.
House Republicans have been vocal, with some asserting that such practices demand accountability at the highest levels. The idea of a chief of staff greenlighting pardons while the president steps back is a glaring red flag for anyone valuing checks and balances.
Trump's own words cut to the chase, alleging Biden only personally signed a handful, like the pardon for his son. That quip, delivered with biting precision, underscores a deeper worry about selective engagement in governance.
As this controversy unfolds, it’s hard to ignore the broader implications for trust in our institutions. When pardons, a profound act of mercy or policy, are reduced to a machine's scribble, the sanctity of the process takes a hit.
The numbers alone, thousands of last-minute clemencies, suggest a system pushed to its limits, perhaps prioritizing quantity over careful consideration. Americans deserve assurance that such power isn't wielded by proxy or automation, but by a leader fully in command.
The House probe into Zients and Biden’s final actions offers a chance to set a precedent, ensuring no future administration can hide behind automation. Let’s hope it leads to clarity, not just more partisan noise, because the principle at stake here matters far beyond any single presidency.
