The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has released an explosive report claiming that President Joe Biden has extensively used an autopen for signing official documents during his tenure. This revelation has sparked a heated debate over who truly controlled these executive actions. Could executive orders signed via autopen be legally challenged or invalidated?
Report Uncovers Identical Biden Signatures
The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has released findings that suggest President Joe Biden frequently used an autopen for signing important government documents. Their analysis revealed identical signatures across multiple documents, contrasting notably with his handwritten signature on his presidential race withdrawal announcement.
The report provocatively states, “WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY,” highlighting concerns about executive authority. This finding raises significant questions about the chain of command in the Biden administration and who had the authority to use the mechanical signature device.
Legal and Political Ramifications
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has called for a Justice Department investigation into Biden’s cognitive state and whether he was exploited. Bailey argues that if Biden was mentally incapable of authorizing these signatures, any orders signed could potentially be “null and void,” creating unprecedented legal questions about executive actions.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has fueled these concerns by claiming Biden “genuinely did not know what he had signed” regarding certain executive orders. The Oversight Project shared video evidence of Johnson discussing a specific instance where Biden allegedly showed no awareness of signing an energy export order.
Historical Context and Future Implications
The use of autopens has been common practice for presidents and lawmakers for decades, designed to help officials manage the substantial document signing requirements of their offices. However, the extent of Biden’s apparent reliance on the technology has raised new questions about presidential oversight and the level of direct engagement required for executive actions.
Heritage attorney Samuel Dewey noted a contrasting example—Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter Biden—which appeared to be signed in person with a noticeably “shaky” signature. This observation further highlights the distinction between documents Biden personally signed versus those potentially handled through mechanical reproduction.
The controversy raises broader questions about transparency in governance and public trust in presidential actions. Whether this investigation leads to policy changes regarding the disclosure of autopen use or new procedures for verifying presidential intent remains to be seen.