Former President Joe Biden’s autopen habit has ignited a firestorm, with critics questioning the New York Times’ one-sided reporting. The controversy centers on Biden’s use of a machine to sign mass clemency orders, a practice now under scrutiny by the Trump administration. It’s a classic case of convenience clashing with accountability.
Fox News reported that during a Sunday interview with the New York Times, Biden defended using an autopen to sign pardons, claiming it was necessary due to the sheer volume of clemency decisions.
Political commentator Mark Halperin swiftly called out the outlet for omitting expert and Republican voices, accusing it of abandoning journalistic integrity. The silence from conservative perspectives in the piece raises eyebrows.
Biden’s autopen saga began during his presidency when he delegated signature duties for a flood of pardons. He insisted he personally made every clemency decision, with staff merely replicating his signature via autopen. Yet, the New York Times noted that Biden didn’t individually approve each name in the broad, categorical pardons.
Biden claimed, “I made every decision,” but the autopen’s use suggests otherwise. The mechanical signature undermines the personal responsibility expected of a president wielding such power. Critics argue this shortcut reeks of bureaucratic laziness.
The former president explained, “we’re talking about a whole lot of people,” justifying the autopen as a practical necessity. Extensive discussions set standards for who qualified for sentence reductions, but Biden’s chief of staff issued final approval for several high-profile preemptive pardons. This delegation muddies the waters of accountability.
The Trump administration is now investigating Biden’s autopen practices, signaling deeper concerns about their legality. Halperin, on Monday’s “The Morning Meeting,” slammed the New York Times for failing to include legal scholars’ takes on this delegation. It’s a glaring omission for a story with such weighty implications.
Halperin didn’t mince words: “It’s absent from the story, it’s madness.” He argued that basic journalism demands diverse perspectives, especially on contentious issues like delegated pardons. The New York Times’ silence on Republican and expert input feels like a deliberate snub.
Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer echoed Halperin, pointing to a pattern of bias in legacy media.
He suggested outlets like the New York Times routinely sidestep Republican voices when Democrats face scrutiny. It’s a playbook conservatives know all too well.
Halperin quipped, “If this shoe were on the other foot,” the New York Times would’ve scrambled for dissenting opinions. He imagined “hysterical law professors” and Republicans demanding investigations if a GOP president pulled the same stunt. The double standard stings.
The New York Times’ article lacks a single quote from a legal expert, a point Halperin called “basic journalism 101.” This omission leaves readers with half the story, skewing perceptions of Biden’s actions. It’s not just sloppy—it’s suspicious.
Biden’s assertion that he oversaw every clemency decision feels hollow when his signature was machine-stamped.
The autopen’s convenience shouldn’t trump the gravity of pardoning convicts. Yet, the New York Times glossed over this nuance.
Halperin argued that if a Republican used an autopen for pardons, the coverage would be relentless. “They’d have a Republican saying this needs to be investigated,” he noted. The absence of such voices in the article fuels distrust in mainstream media.
The controversy isn’t just about a machine—it’s about who holds the reins of power. Biden’s chief of staff signing off on high-profile pardons raises questions about unchecked authority. Conservatives see this as a symptom of progressive overreach.
The New York Times’ failure to engage with Republican critics or legal scholars undermines its credibility. Halperin’s critique resonates with those tired of media cherry-picking narratives to shield Democrats. It’s a subtle but sharp betrayal of public trust.
