Staff Reports
Joe Biden’s autopen saga is beginning to unravel like a cheap sweater, and the threads are fraying faster than a liberal’s argument on constitutional integrity. The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has revealed that nearly every document Biden has signed may have come from a mechanical signature machine rather than the President himself. This startling revelation raises some significant questions. If Biden can’t remember his own name, how can he delegate such critical power?
For a while, this scandal slid under the radar, much like Biden’s approval ratings. But once Donald Trump weighed in, suddenly the mainstream media decided to take a closer look. Trump labeled these signature-stamped pardons as “void,” insinuating that the powers of the presidency are not optional nor can they be satisfied by the robotic arm of an oil-hungry machine. Legal experts have chimed in, arguing that any document signed by an autopen, especially pardons, lacks authenticity and should be tossed in the trash like a half-eaten avocado.
Legal Analysis: Biden's Autopen Pardons Are 'Invalid' https://t.co/lI9ji8Oa4x
— Dr. Kenneth Warner (@wrestlerkw7) March 20, 2025
The crux of the matter boils down to the fact that the U.S. Constitution reserves power for a certain individual—namely, the President. This includes a few critical tasks: signing bills into law, granting pardons, and possibly deciding what toppings go on a White House pizza. The expectation is clear: these actions require personal involvement. A president’s wet signature doesn’t just signify approval; it is a solemn, legally mandated act. So while Biden may be out hunting for ice cream, his autopen is busy signing away the nation’s trust—an act that could very well be unconstitutional.
Those defending the use of an autopen, like advocates of the modern Administrative State, twist the founding documents into pretzels, suggesting that the President can delegate authority. The 2005 Office of Legal Counsel decision provided a loophole, but even that expressed that signature delegation after a decision is not the same as letting a machine do the heavy lifting. The Biden Administration’s use of autopens might be the legal equivalent of trying to smuggle donuts into a health retreat—creative, but ultimately misguided.
In a world where it’s expected for presidents to take personal responsibility, using an autopen underlines a troubling reality. Critics, including Trump, have made it clear that while autopens can be useful for sending letters to well-wishers, they should never replace the President’s direct involvement in things like signing pardons. The idea that someone not elected could be signing off on critical pardons is a slap in the face to democracy and all that government oversight is meant to uphold.
The irony, of course, isn’t lost here. Democrats and their allies, who once championed “defending democracy,” have grown shockingly silent about the constitutional implications of this entire operation. Many believe this situation goes beyond mere negligence; it feels like an exploitation of the 25th Amendment’s safety net. With Joe Biden understood to have “diminished faculties,” maybe Democrats should consider restructuring more than just the party’s ticket for 2024. The real question remains: if they can’t guarantee the authenticity of presidential decisions, then who’s really in charge?
