A government watchdog group has accused the Biden administration of using an autopen to sign nearly all of former President Joe Biden’s executive orders, raising questions about the extent of his direct involvement in key decisions during his presidency.
The Oversight Project, a branch of the Heritage Foundation, released a report alleging that nearly every document bearing Biden’s signature—except for the letter announcing his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race—was signed by an autopen, a mechanical device used to replicate a person’s signature. While autopen use is legally recognized in certain circumstances, its application in signing critical executive orders, pardons, and directives has led to concerns about oversight and transparency.
The watchdog group published a statement on X, declaring, “WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY,” alongside images comparing Biden’s signatures on official documents. The findings have renewed scrutiny over Biden’s cognitive state and whether unelected officials may have played a greater role in shaping policy decisions than previously acknowledged.
The allegations gained further traction after Biden reportedly told Speaker Mike Johnson that he did not recall signing an executive order pausing liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. This admission, combined with the report’s findings, has led critics to question whether Biden was fully aware of all the executive actions issued during his tenure.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has called for a federal investigation into whether Biden’s aides misrepresented his cognitive condition and used his office to advance their own policy agenda. In a letter to the Department of Justice’s inspector general, Bailey argued that many of Biden’s final executive actions should be considered legally void if they were issued without his direct consent. He further suggested that staffers may have exploited Biden’s decline to push policies that were “aggressively much farther to the left” than he had campaigned on.
“By now, Biden’s mental decline is famous,” Bailey wrote. “Under the 25th Amendment, his inability to make decisions should have meant a succession of power. Instead, it appears unelected officials were running the country in his name.”
The concerns over Biden’s awareness of policy decisions are not new. Throughout his presidency, critics accused his administration of shielding him from unscripted public appearances and limiting his interactions with the press. In some cases, spending disclosures suggest that progressive officials directed federal funds toward initiatives not widely publicized. One example flagged by the Department of Government Efficiency includes a $2 billion grant from Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to an organization founded by Stacey Abrams.
Bailey’s letter also questions whether Biden’s staff acted independently in shaping policy. “Who has been running the country for the last few years?” Bailey wrote. “The American people deserve to know whether their president was a mere puppet for far-left, unelected staffers.”
See another example here:
The report has prompted calls from Republican lawmakers for a congressional inquiry into who had control over Biden’s presidential signings and whether the American public was misled about the administration’s decision-making process. While the Biden administration has not issued an official response to the allegations, the controversy is expected to fuel further debate over transparency and executive authority.
