In the waning hours of his presidency, Joe Biden issued a series of controversial pardons that have since ignited a firestorm of criticism and allegations. Notably, these pardons extended to his own family members, Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and individuals associated with the January 6 Committee. Recent analyses suggest that these pardons were executed using an autopen, raising questions about the legitimacy and intent behind these executive actions.
The Oversight Project, a watchdog organization, conducted an in-depth examination of the pardons dated January 19, 2025—just a day before Donald Trump’s inauguration. Their findings indicate that all the pardons bore the exact same autopen signature of Biden, suggesting a mechanical replication rather than individual endorsements. This revelation has led to widespread speculation about who was truly in control during Biden’s final days in office.
Among the beneficiaries of these pardons were Biden’s brother, James Biden, his sister, Valerie Biden Owens, and other close family members. The inclusion of family members in the pardon list has been met with bipartisan criticism. Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri lambasted the move, stating that Biden’s actions “showed that ‘the guy who claimed he would ‘protect norms’ continues to bulldoze them and the Constitution until the bitter end.'”
🚨 Autopen Update 🚨
We analyzed Biden's Jan. 19, 2025 "pardons" for:-Biden Family Members
-Anthony Fauci
-General Milley
-J6 Committee
-Gerald LunderganThey all have the same exact Biden autopen signature https://t.co/jc6mkx37il pic.twitter.com/8VeBDwLNv7
— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) March 11, 2025
The pardons also encompassed high-profile figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and General Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both individuals had been subjects of intense political scrutiny during their tenures. Fauci, in a statement, expressed gratitude for the pardon while maintaining his innocence, asserting that he had “committed no crime.” Similarly, Milley thanked Biden, emphasizing his desire to avoid “fighting those who unjustly might seek retribution for perceived slights.”
The use of an autopen—a device that replicates a person’s signature—has traditionally been reserved for routine documents, not for actions as consequential as presidential pardons. The discovery that all pardons issued on January 19 bore identical autopen signatures has led to questions about the authenticity of these executive decisions. Critics argue that this mechanized approach undermines the gravity and deliberative nature of the pardon process.
Further complicating matters, the Oversight Project unearthed evidence that six criminals were pardoned via autopen on December 30, 2022, while Biden was vacationing in St. Croix. These pardons were officially recorded as “signed in the City of Washington,” despite Biden’s physical absence from the capital. This discrepancy has fueled suspicions about the delegation of presidential powers and the potential exploitation of Biden’s cognitive state by unelected staffers.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has called on the Department of Justice to investigate these irregularities. He expressed concerns that Biden’s cognitive decline may have been exploited by staffers to implement radical policies without his informed consent. Bailey contended that if such exploitation occurred, the orders in question should be considered null and void.
🚨WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY🚨
We gathered every document we could find with Biden's signature over the course of his presidency.
All used the same autopen signature except for the the announcement that the former President was dropping out of the… https://t.co/CC3oJUkNr4 pic.twitter.com/mtNrZsALDu
— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) March 6, 2025
The pardons also extended to members of the House committee that investigated the January 6 Capitol attack, as well as U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before the committee. Biden defended these actions, stating that the pardons were not acknowledgments of wrongdoing but rather protective measures against potential politically motivated prosecutions by the incoming administration.
Incoming President Donald Trump vehemently criticized Biden’s pardons, labeling them as “disgraceful” and accusing those pardoned of committing significant crimes. Trump’s condemnation underscores the deepening political divide and raises concerns about the potential for reciprocal actions in future administrations.
Legal scholars are divided over the constitutionality and ethical implications of these preemptive pardons. Some argue that such use of the pardon power sets a dangerous precedent, effectively placing certain individuals above the law. Others contend that the president possesses broad clemency powers, including the authority to issue preemptive pardons, especially in cases where individuals face unjust persecution.
The autopen controversy has also sparked discussions about the delegation of presidential duties and the potential for abuse. If unelected officials can authorize significant actions like pardons without the president’s direct involvement, it raises concerns about accountability and the concentration of power within the executive branch.
As investigations into the autopen scandal unfold, the legitimacy of Biden’s final pardons remains a contentious issue. The outcomes of these inquiries could have far-reaching implications for the boundaries of executive authority and the integrity of the presidential pardon process.
The unfolding autopen scandal serves as a stark reminder of the potential for procedural abuses within the highest office of the land. It underscores the necessity for vigilance and accountability in safeguarding the principles of democratic governance.
In light of these revelations, there is a growing call among conservatives for comprehensive reforms to prevent future abuses of the pardon power. Such measures are deemed essential to restore public trust and ensure that the executive branch operates within the confines of constitutional propriety.