Biden Autopen Scandal Deepens: Fresh Analysis Raises Questions About Presidential Pardons
A brewing controversy surrounding President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen—a machine that replicates a signature—has taken a new turn. Critics are now scrutinizing a series of pardons issued during his presidency, questioning whether they were personally signed by Biden or mechanically produced without his direct involvement. This latest development adds fuel to an ongoing debate about the authenticity and legality of actions taken under his administration.
The issue first gained traction when eagle-eyed observers noticed inconsistencies in Biden’s signatures on official documents. Some signatures appeared too uniform, lacking the natural variations of a handwritten mark, prompting speculation that an autopen was in play. While the use of such devices isn’t unprecedented—presidents have employed them for decades to handle high volumes of paperwork—the concern here centers on whether Biden knowingly authorized their use for significant acts like pardons, or if aides took liberties without his oversight.
A new analysis, conducted by handwriting experts and reported by conservative outlets, has zeroed in on several pardon documents issued in late 2024. The findings suggest that the signatures bear telltale signs of mechanical replication: identical pressure points, perfectly aligned strokes, and an absence of ink smudging. These characteristics contrast sharply with Biden’s known handwritten signatures, which tend to show slight tremors and irregularities—attributes some attribute to his age and physical condition.
The implications are serious. Under the Constitution, the power to grant pardons is vested solely in the president, a responsibility that many argue requires personal intent. If Biden didn’t physically sign these pardons—or worse, wasn’t fully aware of them—opponents say it could undermine their legitimacy. Legal scholars are divided: some insist that an autopen signature is valid as long as the president approved it, while others contend that such a hands-off approach dilutes the gravity of the act.
The White House has dismissed the uproar as a partisan distraction. In a statement, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre defended the administration, saying, “The President’s authority is clear, and these pardons were issued in full accordance with his directives. This is just another baseless attack from those who refuse to accept his leadership.” She declined to confirm or deny the use of an autopen, calling it a “non-issue.”
But the scandal isn’t dying down. Congressional Republicans are seizing on the story, with some calling for an investigation. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), a vocal Biden critic, tweeted: “If Joe Biden isn’t signing his own pardons, who is running the show? The American people deserve answers.” Others have pointed to specific cases—like the pardon of a controversial figure tied to Democratic donors—as evidence of potential abuse.
This isn’t the first time Biden’s signature has sparked debate. In 2023, similar questions arose over a batch of executive orders, though the furor eventually faded. Now, with his presidency winding down and his legacy under scrutiny, the autopen saga is giving detractors fresh ammunition. Some even tie it to broader narratives about Biden’s mental decline, alleging that staffers are quietly steering the ship while he remains a figurehead.
For now, the controversy remains unresolved. The experts behind the latest analysis are pushing for access to more documents, while watchdog groups have filed Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover the White House’s autopen policies. Whether this escalates into a full-blown legal battle or fizzles out as political noise is anyone’s guess. One thing is certain: in a polarized Washington, even a signature can become a lightning rod.