Autopen Scandal Will Impact Many
Segment # 448
The use of an autopen in the context of the "autopen scandal" involving former President Joe Biden’s pardons refers to the mechanical device that replicates a person’s signature without requiring their physical presence. Below is a concise overview of the autopen’s use, based on available information and the ongoing investigation led by Ed Martin:
Autopen in Biden’s Pardons: On January 19, 2025, Biden issued pardons for family members (Hunter Biden, James Biden, Sara Biden, John Owens), Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and members of the January 6 House Select Committee. Allegations, primarily from conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, claim these pardons were signed using an autopen. Their analysis identified two distinct autopen signature patterns (Autopen A and Autopen B) across the documents, suggesting mechanical replication rather than Biden’s personal signature.
Legal Standing: The use of an autopen is not inherently illegal. A 2005 Department of Justice memo permits autopen signatures for legislation, and a 2024 federal appeals court ruling clarified that pardons do not require a physical signature to be valid under the U.S. Constitution. Presidents like Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama have historically used autopens for various documents. However, the controversy hinges on whether Biden was mentally competent to authorize these pardons or if staff used the autopen without his knowledge, which could raise ethical or legal concerns.
Investigation Focus: Ed Martin, as U.S. Pardon Attorney, is probing whether Biden’s cognitive state allowed him to knowingly approve the pardons or if aides (allegedly Ron Klain, Anita Dunn, and Robert Bauer) improperly used the autopen. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is also investigating, claiming staffers operated the autopen during Biden’s alleged cognitive decline, potentially undermining the pardons’ legitimacy.
Historical Context: Autopen use is common for high-volume document signing by presidents, including routine correspondence and ceremonial items. The controversy here is less about the autopen itself and more about the circumstances—specifically, Biden’s mental capacity and potential unauthorized use by staff.
The investigation into autopen use continues, with Martin and Comer seeking evidence of misconduct.
Ed Martin, appointed by President Donald Trump as the U.S. Pardon Attorney and head of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group, has been investigating the use of autopen signatures for pardons issued by former President Joe Biden during his final days in office. The controversy, often referred to as the "autopen scandal," centers on claims that Biden used an autopen—a mechanical device that replicates signatures—to sign pardons for family members, political allies, and members of the January 6 House Select Committee, among others, without personally authorizing or being aware of them. The investigation was initiated when Martin was interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., and has continued in his current roles.
Key points of the investigation include:
Scope of Pardons: On January 19, 2025, Biden issued last-minute pardons for his son Hunter Biden, family members (James Biden, Sara Biden, Valerie Biden, and John Owens), Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and members of the January 6 Committee. These pardons were described as unprecedented in scope, raising questions about their legitimacy.
Autopen Allegations: President Trump and conservative groups, notably the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, have claimed that Biden’s pardons were signed using an autopen, suggesting that Biden may not have been mentally competent to authorize them. The Oversight Project’s analysis found that many of Biden’s January 19 pardons bore identical autopen signatures, with two distinct autopen signature variations identified (Autopen A and Autopen B).
Legal Context: Legal experts argue that autopen use is not inherently problematic, as the U.S. Constitution does not require a president to physically sign pardons, and a 2005 Department of Justice memo supports the use of autopen for signing legislation. Historical precedent shows presidents like Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama have used autopens for various documents. A federal appeals court ruling in 2024 further stated that pardons do not need to be in writing to be valid. However, Martin’s investigation questions whether Biden’s cognitive state allowed him to knowingly authorize these pardons, suggesting potential fraud if unauthorized staff used the autopen.
Investigation Details: Martin began probing the issue during his brief tenure as interim U.S. Attorney, contacting senior Biden officials, including family members, to inquire about Biden’s competence and the pardon process. Some recipients reportedly “lawyered up” in response. Martin has named three key Biden administration “gatekeepers” allegedly involved: Ron Klain (former White House Chief of Staff), Anita Dunn (former senior adviser), and Robert Bauer (former Obama attorney). A whistleblower has reportedly come forward, per The Blaze, providing further details about this inner circle’s role.
Congressional Involvement: House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) is also investigating Biden’s autopen use, claiming to have identified staffers who operated the autopen during Biden’s alleged cognitive decline. Comer has threatened subpoenas for those involved, framing the issue as a potential constitutional crisis tied to questions about who was making decisions in the Biden White House.
Trump’s Claims: Trump has publicly declared Biden’s autopen pardons “void, vacant, and of no further force or effect,” alleging they were issued without Biden’s knowledge, potentially constituting a crime. He has suggested that individuals like Adam Schiff and Fauci, who received pardons, could face investigations. However, legal scholars argue there is no constitutional mechanism to overturn pardons once granted, and Trump’s claims lack evidence that Biden was unaware of the pardons.
The investigation remains ongoing, with Martin and Comer emphasizing the need for scrutiny due to the unprecedented nature of the pardons and concerns about Biden’s mental capacity. Critics, including legal scholars and some Democrats, argue that the focus on autopen use is a distraction, as it is a common and legally accepted practice, and Biden’s public statements indicate he knowingly issued the pardons to protect against potential political retribution.