Attorney General Pam Bondi is diving headfirst into a storm over whether former President Joe Biden’s autopen-signed pardons hold water.
The crux of this saga is Bondi’s review of Biden’s use of an autopen for executive actions, sparked by a House Oversight Committee report that casts doubt on the legitimacy of such signatures without documented proof of Biden’s personal approval, as Axios reports.
For months, President Donald Trump has been sounding the alarm, insisting that any pardons signed via autopen should be tossed out as invalid. His fiery rhetoric, calling for them to be deemed “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT,” has fueled the conservative push to scrutinize these actions.
Bondi’s office didn’t waste time, with the AG herself confirming, “My team has already initiated a review of the Biden administration's reported use of autopen for pardons.” That’s a bold first step, especially when the House Oversight report, led by chair James Comer (R-KY) suggests a potential cover-up of Biden’s health and questions the validity of every pardon issued under his watch.
The report doesn’t mince words, arguing that executive actions, including pardons from Biden’s final days in office, lack written evidence of his direct approval. It even calls for voiding all such autopen-signed decisions, a stance that resonates with those of us who value transparency over bureaucratic shortcuts.
Adding fuel to the fire, the report accuses Biden’s aides of orchestrating a cover-up, prompting Comer’s letter to Bondi to demand an investigation into their actions. This isn’t just about signatures -- it’s about whether the American people were kept in the dark about who was truly calling the shots. That’s a question worth asking, even if it ruffles progressive feathers.
Now, let’s not ignore the other side -- legal scholars point out that autopen use isn’t new; past presidents, including Obama, who signed Patriot Act extensions with one in 2011, have relied on it. A 2005 Justice Department opinion even backs this up, stating a president can direct a subordinate to affix his signature, provided he’s made the decision himself.
That same 2005 opinion clarifies the president “need not be present when his signature is affixed,” which Democrats are quick to latch onto as their defense. But let’s not kid ourselves—absence of presence is one thing, absence of proof is another.
Biden himself told the New York Times in July that he made “every single” clemency decision, a claim echoed by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. Their counter-report insists no witness could confirm Republican allegations of unauthorized autopen use. Sounds reassuring, until you wonder why the White House didn’t keep better records for such monumental acts.
Speaking of clemency, Biden’s actions were no small potatoes -- he commuted sentences for nearly 2,500 nonviolent drug offenders and 1,500 to home confinement. He also reduced sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates to life without parole. That’s a sweeping use of power.
Then there’s the preemptive pardon of family members, citing fears they’d be targeted under a Trump administration. It’s a move that reeks of political gamesmanship, and when paired with autopen concerns, it only deepens the suspicion of overreach. Protecting family is one thing; dodging accountability is another.
Democrats, led by Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) call the investigation a “sham,” arguing there’s no evidence that Biden didn’t authorize every action. They’ve also pointed fingers at Trump for admitting he might use an autopen for trivial letters, as if that equates to pardoning thousands. Nice try, but signing a kid’s letter isn’t quite the same as rewriting someone’s life sentence.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) doubled down at a recent news conference, labeling Biden’s autopen use “unprecedented” -- though history says otherwise -- and accusing the administration of having the “audacity” to sign without clear knowledge. His frustration is palpable, even if the claim doesn’t fully stick.
The partisan divide couldn’t be clearer, with Democrats dismissing the probe as baseless while Republicans push for answers about Biden’s aides and the White House’s record-keeping. For those of us wary of unchecked power, this isn’t about party -- it’s about principle.
So, where does this leave us? Bondi’s review could set a precedent on how far presidential power extends via machine, and whether Biden’s sweeping clemency actions stand up to scrutiny. Until then, the debate over autopen pardons remains a stark reminder: in a republic, even the smallest detail of governance deserves a human touch.
