Former President Joe Biden on Wednesday staunchly defended his use of an autopen during his presidency, dismissing allegations that it signaled a lack of control over White House operations. Responding to accusations leveled by President Donald Trump, Biden issued a firm statement asserting his full authority over critical decisions made during his term.
The controversy centers on the use of a mechanical signature device, which Trump and his allies claim was used to obscure Biden’s alleged cognitive decline, sparking a debate about transparency and the exercise of executive power.
Trump’s Push for Investigation
President Trump has called for a formal investigation into the Biden administration’s practices, specifically targeting the use of an autopen. In a memo issued on Wednesday, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to probe whether top Biden officials conspired to deceive the public about the former president’s mental capacity.
He wrote, “In recent months, it has become increasingly apparent that former President Biden’s aides abused the power of Presidential signatures through the use of an autopen to conceal Biden’s cognitive decline and assert Article II authority. This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history. The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden’s signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.”
Trump emphasized the gravity of a president’s signature, which holds the power to enact laws, appoint high-ranking officials, shape national policies, and grant pardons.
Allegations of Unconstitutional Actions
Trump’s memo further argued that if Biden’s advisors used the autopen to conceal his incapacity, it could constitute a serious breach of constitutional authority.
He stated, “Given clear indications that President Biden lacked the capacity to exercise his Presidential authority, if his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity, while taking radical executive actions all in his name, that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the Presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden’s name.”
These allegations suggest that numerous executive actions, including pardons and policy changes, could face legal challenges if found to have been enacted without Biden’s direct oversight, raising questions about the legitimacy of his administration’s decisions.
Biden’s Defense and Political Counterattack
In response, Biden firmly denied any suggestion of diminished control, stating, “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”
He framed the controversy as a politically motivated distraction, adding, “This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations.”
Biden’s remarks aim to shift focus to Republican legislative priorities, portraying the autopen issue as a tactic to divert attention from policies he claims would harm ordinary Americans.
Congressional Oversight and Ongoing Scrutiny
The controversy has also drawn attention from House Republicans, with Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer leading an investigation launched last month to assess Biden’s mental fitness during his final months in office.
The probe focuses on whether Biden was capable of authorizing the autopen’s use for official documents. Comer has signaled a willingness to escalate the matter, stating last week that he was “open” to summoning Biden to testify before the House if necessary. This investigation reflects Republican efforts to scrutinize the Biden administration’s actions, particularly as Trump’s administration seeks to challenge the legacy of its predecessor while advancing its own agenda.
