Questions of trust and transparency swirl around Joe Biden’s final days in office. Reports reveal that his chief of staff, not Biden himself, gave the green light to use an autopen for high-profile pardons, raising serious concerns about who truly held the reins of power.
According to Fox News, Jeff Zients, Biden’s chief of staff, approved the use of an autopen to sign preemptive pardons for figures like Anthony Fauci and Gen. Mark Milley on Biden’s last day as president. This move, meant to shield these officials from potential retribution under the Trump administration, has ignited a firestorm of debate over executive accountability.
The autopen, a device that replicates a signature, became the tool of choice for thousands of clemency acts during Biden’s tenure. Of the 4,245 pardons and commutations he issued, a staggering 96% came in his final months between October 2024 and January, per Pew Research Center data. This last-minute rush only deepens suspicions about the process.
On Biden’s last day, Jan. 19, a late-night meeting with aides stretched until nearly 10 p.m. to finalize these preemptive pardons. Emails later showed a draft of decisions sent to Zients’ assistant at 10:03 p.m., setting the stage for a questionable handoff of authority.
By 10:28 p.m., Zients and deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed were asked to approve the autopen’s use. Zients responded just three minutes later, stating, “I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons,” per reports. This swift sign-off by a staffer, not the president, fuels doubts about proper oversight.
Biden reportedly discussed the criteria for broader categorical pardons but did not personally approve each name. Instead, he endorsed general standards for who qualified for sentence reductions. Such delegation might be practical, but it hardly inspires confidence in a hands-on commander-in-chief.
President Donald Trump didn’t mince words, calling this autopen saga possibly “one of the biggest scandals that we’ve had in 50 to 100 years” during a Monday press interaction. “I guarantee you he knew nothing about what he was signing,” Trump asserted, pointing to a perceived lapse in Biden’s engagement. His critique resonates with those wary of unchecked bureaucratic power.
Trump’s concerns aren’t new; he first raised the autopen issue in March, alleging thousands of Biden’s pardons could be void. By June, he ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether this practice masked a decline in Biden’s mental sharpness. If true, this could undermine the legitimacy of countless executive actions.
In a memo, Trump wrote, “Biden’s aides abused the power of presidential signatures through the use of an autopen to conceal Biden’s cognitive decline.” This accusation cuts to the core of public trust—were Americans misled about who was running the show? It’s a question that demands answers beyond partisan spin.
The White House has pushed back, with spokesperson Harrison Fields claiming Biden’s track record on honesty is now in tatters. “The same president who lied through his teeth to the American people for four years… should not be trusted again,” Fields stated. Such sharp words from the current administration highlight a deep rift over Biden’s legacy.
Fields further accused Biden’s team of orchestrating “the most egregious cover-up scheme in American politics.” While the rhetoric is strong, it reflects a conservative frustration with what many see as progressive overreach hiding behind technicalities like an autopen. Transparency, not evasion, should be the standard for any administration.
Interestingly, Trump himself admits to using an autopen for letters, though he insists on hand-signing legally binding documents. This contrast underscores a principled stance on executive responsibility, one that critics argue Biden’s team failed to uphold. The distinction matters when public trust hangs in the balance.
What exactly is an autopen? It’s a machine that physically holds a pen to mimic a person’s signature, capable of using various writing tools, unlike a mere stamp. Its use in official pardons—thousands of them—turns a mundane gadget into a symbol of potential misuse.
For conservatives, this debacle epitomizes a deeper issue with progressive governance: a tendency to skirt accountability while claiming moral high ground. Protecting figures like Fauci and Milley may have been the goal, but at what cost to democratic norms? Surely, safeguarding allies shouldn’t trump the integrity of presidential authority.
As investigations loom, the autopen controversy serves as a cautionary tale about power, trust, and the fine line between efficiency and evasion. While Biden’s team may argue practicality, the optics of a chief of staff signing off on such weighty matters leave a bitter taste. Americans deserve to know who’s truly at the helm, not just who’s holding the pen.
