Joe Biden’s final days in office have sparked a firestorm over his use of an autopen to sign pardons. Now, a rare interview with a major outlet has only fanned the flames of distrust.
According to Fox News, Biden spoke to The New York Times in a brief ten-minute phone call to address mounting questions from President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers about the legality of his clemency decisions. The former president insisted he personally made every call on these pardons, despite evidence suggesting otherwise.
This controversy stems from Biden’s use of an autopen to sign off on numerous pardons as his term wound down. Critics argue this raises serious questions about accountability and whether he was truly in control of such weighty decisions.
The New York Times reported, buried deep in the 32nd paragraph of its story, that Biden did not individually approve each name for categorical pardons affecting large groups. This directly undercuts his claim of making “every decision” and suggests a troubling detachment from the process.
Biden’s team explained he merely signed off on criteria for determining who qualified for sentence reductions after extensive discussions. But if he wasn’t reviewing the final names, how can the public trust the integrity of these acts of clemency?
Further complicating matters, it was revealed that Biden’s chief of staff, Jeff Zients, gave the final approval for the autopen’s use in specific cases, including for figures like medical adviser Anthony Fauci and Gen. Mark Milley. This delegation of authority only deepens skepticism about who was really steering the ship.
Critics have pounced on The New York Times for its handling of the interview, accusing the outlet of soft-pedaling Biden’s contradictions. NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck called the report “embarrassing,” pointing out the absurdity of waiting until paragraph 32 to reveal key discrepancies.
Political commentator Mark Halperin echoed this frustration on “The Morning Meeting” podcast, questioning why the Times failed to include Republican reactions or legal expert analysis. Without those perspectives, the story feels more like a press release than a piece of journalism.
Independent journalist Drew Holden also took to social media, slamming the Times for repeating Biden’s claims while burying admissions that he didn’t personally oversee many decisions. Holden’s pointed question about trusting an administration with a track record of obfuscation cuts to the heart of public doubt.
Why did Biden, after dodging The New York Times for interviews throughout his presidency, finally choose this outlet to address the autopen mess? DePauw University journalism professor Jeffrey McCall suggested Biden’s handlers saw the Times as a sympathetic platform likely to set a friendly tone for other legacy media to follow.
Tim Young, a Media Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, offered a harsher take, calling the interview a “last-ditch effort to save face” amid pressure from House GOP and oversight investigations. He painted a grim picture of a presidency scrambling to avoid a constitutional crisis over whether Biden even knew what was being signed in his name.
Young’s critique bites hard, imagining a leader so diminished that he must publicly deny ignorance of his own administration’s actions. It’s a scenario that fuels distrust in a system already strained by progressive overreach and lack of transparency.
The autopen saga is more than a procedural hiccup; it’s a glaring symbol of eroded accountability at the highest level. When a president’s signature, a mark of personal responsibility, is reduced to a mechanical stamp, it’s the American people who are left questioning the legitimacy of these decisions.
Biden’s insistence that Trump and other critics are “liars” falls flat when the facts, even as reported by a friendly outlet, contradict his narrative. This isn’t about partisan squabbles; it’s about ensuring that power isn’t wielded without oversight or consequence.
As this controversy lingers, the silence from The New York Times on requests for comment only adds to the perception of bias. If the media won’t hold leaders to account, and leaders won’t take responsibility, the trust deficit in our institutions will only grow wider.
