White House insiders used the autopen to sign sweeping pardons in President Biden’s final hours, leaving Americans to wonder if the man elected to the highest office even bothered to read the names he was supposedly forgiving.
At a Glance
- Staff, not Biden himself, authorized the autopen to mass-sign controversial pardons for political allies and family in the administration’s last days.
- Congress and the Trump Justice Department have launched investigations into whether Biden’s actions violated constitutional norms and the spirit of executive clemency.
- Emails show Chief of Staff Jeff Zients made final calls on who got pardoned, raising questions about Biden’s actual involvement and accountability.
- The legitimacy of these pardons is in limbo, with critics arguing the process makes a mockery of presidential responsibility and due process.
White House Aides, Not Biden, Pulled the Strings on Last-Minute Pardons
In the waning hours of the Biden presidency, the White House scrambled to push through a staggering list of pardons and commutations. The catch? Many weren’t signed by Biden’s own hand but by a mechanical autopen, with senior staff making the final decisions. Among the “lucky” recipients were Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, Biden’s own family, and members of the former January 6th committee. The New York Times and other outlets revealed it was Chief of Staff Jeff Zients who authorized the autopen late at night after a “review” that increasingly looks like little more than box-checking. Even Biden’s defenders admit he left the rubber stamp to his staff, justifying it with the sheer volume of paperwork. Americans are left to wonder if this is the transparency and accountability we were promised, or just more D.C. business as usual.
The White House claims Biden made every “substantive” decision, but the evidence paints a picture of rushed, staff-driven pardons, handled in a way that would make any bureaucrat proud. Critics argue that real leadership means facing the tough calls yourself, not outsourcing the most solemn duties of the presidency to an autopen and a handful of aides.
Investigations and Outrage: Trump Administration and Congress Push Back
As soon as President Trump returned to the Oval Office, his administration and Republican leaders in Congress launched a battery of investigations into the legitimacy of Biden’s mass pardons. House Oversight Chairman James Comer issued subpoenas for White House communications, demanding to know who actually reviewed each case. The Justice Department under Trump is also scrutinizing whether constitutional requirements were met or if Biden’s team trampled the intent of the law by delegating his most critical duties.
Emails and internal memos obtained by reporters show Chief of Staff Zients giving the green light to the autopen, directly contradicting the image of a hands-on, engaged leader. Trump and his allies have rightly called out the absurdity of letting a machine and a handful of loyalists wipe the slate clean for political insiders, all while average Americans sit in prison for far less. The message sent: if you have the right friends in high places, the rules simply don’t apply.
Constitutional Erosion or Administrative Convenience?
Legal scholars are now divided, with some claiming the president’s “authorization” makes the pardons valid, while others argue that personal review and signature are non-negotiable for such consequential acts. The House investigation has already uncovered evidence that Biden’s team viewed the process as a routine administrative task, not the sacred constitutional duty it is meant to be. Critics argue this sets a dangerous precedent—if a president can simply delegate away the responsibility for pardons, what’s to stop future leaders from outsourcing any part of their job they find inconvenient?
Biden’s public defense has only fueled the fire. In interviews, he insisted, “I made every decision,” sidestepping the question of whether he actually read and considered each case. That’s cold comfort to Americans who expect the president to weigh the merits of clemency with their own eyes, not rely on staffers whose main qualification seems to be loyalty to the outgoing administration. The controversy has already become a rallying cry for those who believe the Constitution is more than a set of suggestions and that real leadership means personal accountability.
