The Autopen Controversy: Unraveling Biden’s Pardons and the Power Behind the Scenes

In the twilight of Joe Biden’s presidency, a storm of controversy erupted over his use of the presidential pardon power. At the heart of this scandal is the claim that Biden personally signed only one pardon—for his son, Hunter Biden—while delegating all others to an autopen, a machine that mechanically replicates a signature.

This distinction has ignited allegations that unelected aides and cabinet members wielded the real power in the administration, raising serious questions about Biden’s cogency, consent, and the legitimacy of these pardons. Critics argue that most of these pardons were not issued to correct miscarriages of justice—asserting this as the sole constitutional basis for such acts—further fueling debate over their propriety.

As Donald Trump vows to investigate, skepticism abounds: will this lead to prosecution, or is it merely political theater, a continuation of the status quo with much noise but little substance?

The Pardons: Hunter’s Exception and the Autopen Rule

As Biden’s term drew to a close in January 2025, he issued a series of pardons, a customary move for departing presidents. However, the method of signing these documents has drawn intense scrutiny. Reports, including a June 5, 2025, Daily Mail article titled “The ONLY pardon Biden signed by hand was his most controversial... as Trump investigates autopen overuse,” assert that Biden personally signed only the pardon for Hunter Biden. This pardon, issued in December 2024, shielded Hunter from prosecution for tax evasion, illegal gun possession, and foreign lobbying violations tied to his business dealings. Every other pardon, critics claim, was executed via autopen, a practice that has sparked outrage and suspicion.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of the pardons reportedly signed by autopen:

Dr. Anthony Fauci: The former NIAID director received a preemptive pardon on January 19, 2025, for potential liability tied to his COVID-19 policy decisions. According to the *Times of India*, this pardon bore the autopen’s telltale uniformity, not Biden’s hand.

General Mark Milley: The ex-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was pardoned for actions during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot response. Conservative outlets like the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project note its autopen signature, aligning with the broader pattern.

January 6 House Select Committee Members: Figures like Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, and associated staff and police witnesses received pardons for their investigative roles. The *Times of India* and other sources report these as autopen-signed, issued en masse on January 19, 2025.

Biden Family Members: Beyond Hunter, Biden pardoned his brothers, James and Frank Biden, his sister Valerie Biden Owens, and their spouses shortly before leaving office. The *Daily Mail* highlights these as autopen-signed, intended to preempt Trump administration probes into family dealings.

Additional Recipients: Pardons extended to figures like Larry Allen West, a January 6 defendant, and various clemency recipients, such as non-violent drug offenders. While official Justice Department records don’t specify signature methods, critics point to signature consistency as evidence of autopen use.

The contrast is stark: Hunter’s pardon, a deeply personal act, bears Biden’s own signature, while others—spanning political allies, family, and symbolic gestures—rely on a machine. An X post by @HansMahncke underscores this disparity: “It’s always been striking that the only pardon Biden personally signed was the Hunter pardon… they knew very well that there were potential legal issues with the auto-pen.”

This selective hand-signing suggests a calculated move to ensure Hunter’s pardon’s unassailability, while others were left to a mechanical proxy, inviting questions about who authorized them.

The Power Brokers: Who Really Ran the Show?

If Biden didn’t personally sign these pardons, who did—or rather, who controlled the autopen? Allegations point to a cadre of unelected insiders, including chiefs of staff, aides, and cabinet members, who may have assumed presidential authority. Evidence from investigations and whistleblower claims names specific individuals:

Ron Klain: Biden’s Chief of Staff until 2023, Klain is a prime target in House Oversight Chairman James Comer’s probes. A June 2025 Fox News report details Comer’s demand for Klain’s testimony, alleging he helped cover up Biden’s cognitive decline and may have overseen autopen use.

Anita Dunn: A senior advisor and longtime Biden confidante, Dunn is similarly implicated. An X post by @Rightanglenews cites a whistleblower naming her among “key operators” in the autopen scandal, suggesting she influenced pardon decisions.

Steve Ricchetti and Bob Bauer: As counselor and personal attorney, respectively, these aides are accused of facilitating the process. The same whistleblower account ties them to the autopen’s deployment, per Right Angle News.

Jill Biden: The First Lady’s inclusion in these allegations, as noted in the X post, hints at a familial role in shielding Biden and pushing pardons for relatives, though evidence remains anecdotal.

Anthony Blinken: As Secretary of State, Blinken’s role is less direct but significant. Critics argue that as a cabinet heavyweight, he was part of an administration complicit in—or at least aware of—aides’ overreach. No specific evidence ties him to the autopen, but his prominence makes him a symbolic figure in this narrative.

House Republicans, per Axios and USA Today, have expanded investigations into Biden’s health and decision-making, targeting these figures for allegedly running a shadow presidency. Trump himself has claimed, “Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president” (Newsday), implying aides usurped Biden’s role. While no documents conclusively prove they acted without his knowledge, the sheer volume of autopen pardons—coupled with Biden’s reported frailty—lends credence to the theory that these insiders held disproportionate sway.

Cogency and Consent: Was Biden in Control?

The autopen controversy hinges on a troubling question: Was Joe Biden mentally fit to authorize these pardons? At 82 in 2024, Biden faced persistent scrutiny over his cognitive health, amplified by gaffes and special counsel Robert Hur’s audio recordings, which some claim reveal memory lapses. A Reuters report notes the Justice Department’s probe into whether Biden was “competent” during his final acts, with Comer alleging a “cover-up” of decline (Fox News).

If Biden lacked full cogency or consent, the pardons’ legitimacy falters. Critics argue that aides may have exploited his condition, using the autopen to issue pardons he didn’t fully endorse. An X post by @BrilynHollyhand asserts, “Legal experts are saying everything signed by Joe Biden’s autopen is INVALID,” though this overstates the legal consensus. No formal competency ruling exists—only speculation fueled by public perception and partisan attacks. Biden countered, “I made the decisions about the pardons… Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous” (AP News), but doubts linger.

This uncertainty casts a shadow over the pardons’ ethical grounding, especially if aides acted unilaterally. The absence of definitive proof doesn’t dispel the possibility that Biden, in his waning days, was a figurehead for decisions made by others.

Constitutional Critique: Pardons Without Justice?

Hunter Biden: A personal favor, not a justice correction, shielding him from well-documented charges.

Fauci and Milley: Preemptive pardons for uncharged acts, protecting allies rather than righting wrongs.

J6 Committee: Blanket immunity for political actors, lacking specific injustices to rectify.

Family Members: Self-serving protections against future probes, not judicial errors.

Legal experts, per CBS News, affirm the president’s broad authority, and autopen use is permissible (Justice Department opinion, 2005). But ethically, these pardons—especially if issued without Biden’s full awareness—smack of abuse. They contrast with traditional clemency for wronged individuals, leaning instead toward cronyism and self-preservation. This critique, while not legally disqualifying, undermines their moral weight, particularly under an autopen’s impersonal stamp.

Trump’s Pursuit: Prosecution or Posturing?

Trump has seized on this scandal, ordering Justice Department investigations into Biden’s pardons and autopen use (The Telegraph). He’s labeled them “void” and promised accountability, yet evidence of Biden’s unawareness remains elusive (AP News). Legal scholars like Thomas Gift (Newsweek) predict little outcome: “The president has unilateral power to pardon… nothing is likely to come from this.”

History suggests this is business as usual—grand investigations yielding scant results. Prosecuting a former president or aides is a high bar, often sidestepped for political expediency. Trump’s rhetoric may be “bread crumbs” for his base, a spectacle of outrage without substance. As with past probes, the autopen saga risks fading into noise, not action.

A Legacy Tarnished by Doubt

Joe Biden’s pardons, marked by a single hand-signed act for Hunter and a flood of autopen proxies, paint a picture of a presidency in question. Evidence points to aides like Klain, Dunn, Ricchetti, and even Blinken as potential puppetmasters, though proof of their dominance is circumstantial. Biden’s cogency, untested legally but doubted publicly, amplifies concerns that these acts lacked his true consent.

The pardons’ ethical failings—favoring allies and family over justice—erode their legitimacy. Trump’s promised reckoning may falter, leaving this as another chapter of political theater. In the end, the autopen controversy underscores a troubling truth: power, unchecked and obscured, risks turning a sacred duty into a mechanical farce.

Watch Lawfare Show