Former President Joe Biden’s final days in office unleashed a firestorm over his use of an autopen to sign thousands of pardons, raising questions about accountability.
In a whirlwind of clemency actions, Biden’s team used an autopen to ink 25 warrants, including two massive orders granting relief to thousands, while he admitted to not personally vetting every name.
The New York Post reported that the process, overseen by then-Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, has drawn sharp criticism from President Trump and sparked probes into potential misuse of executive power.
Last December, Biden commuted sentences for roughly 1,500 inmates and pardoned 39 individuals, setting the stage for his controversial exit.
Just three days before leaving office, he issued another sweeping commutation for nearly 2,500 federal inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses. These broad strokes relied on standards Biden approved, but his staff handled the gritty details.
Zients greenlit the autopen’s use on Jan. 19 at 10:31 p.m., hours before Biden’s term ended, according to internal emails.
Former staff secretary Stefanie Feldman managed the device, processing documents based on “blurbs” that confirmed Biden’s orders. Yet, most assistants drafting these blurbs weren’t in the room when Biden gave the go-ahead, fueling skepticism about oversight.
“I made every decision,” Biden insisted to the New York Times, brushing off concerns about the autopen’s role. His claim rings hollow when thousands of names were processed without his direct review, suggesting a system ripe for exploitation. The reliance on staff to execute such weighty decisions undermines the gravity of presidential clemency.
Biden did personally approve high-profile pardons, like one for Gen. Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “We know how vindictive Trump is,” Biden told the Times, defending his preemptive pardon to shield Milley from potential political retaliation.
While strategic, this move highlights Biden’s selective involvement in a process that otherwise leaned heavily on automation.
President Trump didn’t mince words, calling the autopen use “a crime to do that to the country” on The Post’s “Pod Force One” podcast.
His outrage taps into a broader conservative distrust of Biden’s final acts, with Trump alleging aides “surrounded the beautiful Resolute Desk” to push through questionable signatures. The hyperbole aside, his concerns about unchecked power resonate with those wary of bureaucratic overreach.
The Justice Department launched an investigation last month into whether White House aides abused the autopen to wield presidential authority improperly.
House Republicans, led by Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, are also digging into claims of a cover-up tied to Biden’s mental acuity during these decisions. These probes reflect a growing unease that Biden’s team may have exploited procedural loopholes.
Trump’s own White House has clamped down on autopen use, restricting it to two top aides, Will Scharf and Susie Wiles, per an internal memo. This stark contrast underscores a conservative push for tighter control over executive actions. Biden’s freewheeling approach, by comparison, feels like a relic of a less accountable era.
Biden fired back at critics, accusing Republicans of lying about his aides’ actions to “change the focus” from their own failures, per the Times. His deflection dodges the core issue: a president’s duty to oversee clemency with precision, not a rubber stamp. The public deserves clarity on who truly held the pen.
The autopen, a practice dating back to the Truman era, isn’t inherently nefarious, but its scale under Biden raises red flags. When thousands of pardons are signed without direct presidential scrutiny, it risks eroding trust in the executive branch. Conservatives rightly question whether this was leadership or laziness.
Biden’s preemptive pardons for family members, including his brother James, further muddle the narrative. These personal protections, signed on Jan. 19, suggest a president more focused on shielding allies than ensuring fairness across the board. It’s a move that smells of favoritism, even if legally permissible.
Ed Martin, leading an anti-weaponization working group, is probing whether Biden was fully competent during these final acts or if aides took advantage of him. The implication that Biden may have been a figurehead in his own administration is a damning critique. It fuels conservative narratives about unelected bureaucrats steering the ship.
Trump’s charge that Biden’s aides are “criminals” who “should never be forgotten” is classic red meat for his base, per his podcast remarks. While overheated, it reflects a genuine conservative grievance: the sanctity of presidential authority must be preserved. Autopen or not, the buck stops with the commander-in-chief.
The controversy over Biden’s pardons isn’t just about mechanics—it’s about trust in governance. Conservatives see a troubling precedent in delegating such power, while Biden’s team insists it was all above board. As investigations unfold, the truth will either vindicate Biden or expose a system that let accountability slip through the cracks.
