Former President Joe Biden’s latest controversy might just be the bureaucratic blunder of the century. For years, Biden dodged the press like a cat avoiding a bath, but on July 13, 2025, he finally picked up the phone for a quick chat with The New York Times, only to stir up a storm over his use of an autopen to sign presidential pardons. Let’s unpack this mess with a clear eye and a healthy dose of skepticism.
Here’s the crux: Biden’s rare interview with the Times tackled accusations of using an autopen for pardons, while the Trump administration launched an investigation into the legality of these signatures, and critics slammed the newspaper for soft-pedaling key details, Fox News reported.
Back in April 2024, The New York Times called out Biden for playing hide-and-seek with independent journalists, noting he’d granted less media access than predecessors like Trump or Obama. “For anyone who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be troubling,” the paper stated. Troubling? More like a masterclass in dodging accountability.
Throughout his presidency, Biden’s team kept him under wraps, limiting press conferences and sit-downs to a bare minimum. Even Politico noted a “petty feud” between Biden’s camp and the Times, with his staff dismissing the paper’s journalists as “entitled.” Sounds like someone didn’t want their homework checked.
Aside from a casual 2021 chat with a columnist, Biden stonewalled the Times for years—until this month’s ten-minute phone call. When the interview dropped on July 13, 2025, the focus was squarely on the growing storm over his autopen-signed pardons. And oh boy, did it raise eyebrows.
Now, an autopen isn’t just some digital doodle—it’s a machine that physically mimics a signature with a real pen. The Oversight Project, alongside The Heritage Foundation, reported on March 6, 2025, that most of Biden’s documents during his term bore autopen signatures. If true, that’s a lot of ink not personally spilled by the man himself.
The Times’ headline tried to smooth things over: “Biden Says He Made the Clemency Decisions.” But dig deeper—way down to paragraph 32—and you find Biden didn’t personally approve every name in mass pardons, per his team. Talk about burying the lead deeper than a pirate’s treasure.
Even more eyebrow-raising, the story’s final line revealed chief of staff, Jeff Zients, sometimes gave the green light for autopen use. The only pardon Biden physically signed? Hunter Biden’s, naturally.
Critics pounced, pointing out the Times’ early paragraphs clashed with later admissions. Independent journalist Drew Holden blasted the paper on X for echoing Biden’s claims while downplaying contradictions, noting other outlets followed suit. When agenda-setting looks more like agenda-hiding, you’ve got a problem.
President Donald Trump didn’t hold back, calling the autopen saga possibly “one of the biggest scandals” in decades during a White House statement this month. “I guarantee you he knew nothing about what he was signing,” Trump declared. That’s a bold claim, but given the paper trail, it’s hard to dismiss outright.
Trump, who admitted in March 2025 to using an autopen for correspondence, drew a line at pardons, labeling such use “disgraceful.” Meanwhile, the White House announced a full investigation, with officials poring over thousands of documents from the National Archives. The Counsel’s Office, alongside the Justice Department, is leading the charge—turns out, actions have consequences.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt didn’t mince words either, telling Fox News Digital that Biden handed presidential power to “unelected leftist staffers” via autopen. “It has been widely reported,” she said, slamming the former administration’s competence. If true, that’s not just sloppy—it’s a constitutional tightrope walk.
Journalism professor Jeffrey McCall from DePauw University suggested Biden’s team picked the Times for damage control, knowing its influence would ripple through legacy media. Tim Young of The Heritage Foundation agreed, noting pressure from House GOP and the Oversight Project forced Biden’s hand. A constitutional crisis isn’t just a buzzword when signatures are in question.
Media watchdogs weren’t impressed either—NewsBusters’ Curtis Houck called the Times’ piece “embarrassing,” while commentator Mark Halperin accused it of ignoring basic journalistic balance by omitting expert and Republican perspectives. When a major outlet plays PR for a story this big, you’ve got to wonder who’s really setting the narrative. Fox News Digital sought the Times’ response, but so far, crickets.
So, where does this leave us? Biden’s autopen habit, the Times’ questionable framing, and a White House investigation paint a picture of accountability long overdue. Let’s hope the truth gets signed, sealed, and delivered—preferably without a machine doing the heavy lifting.
