The controversy surrounding former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen to issue pardons in his final months in office has sparked significant political backlash. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has emerged as a leading critic, raising doubts about the legitimacy of these pardons—particularly the one granted to Dr. Anthony Fauci. Paul contends that the autopen may have been used without Biden’s direct input, citing accounts from individuals who claim they received instructions from aides, including staff linked to Jill Biden.
The investigation, initiated by President Trump in June, is focused on determining whether the autopen-signed pardons were issued with appropriate presidential oversight. Paul has questioned Biden’s mental acuity at the time, suggesting the former president may not have been fully aware of who he was pardoning. He pointed to a key difference in procedure: the pardon for Biden’s son, Hunter, was reportedly signed by hand—suggesting a more deliberate action compared to the autopen’s use for others.
Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) has also joined the inquiry, demanding access to sealed records involving the autopen. His push followed explosive testimony from Neera Tanden, former director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. Tanden admitted she had been authorized to use and direct the autopen from October 2021 through May 2023, sometimes without directly confirming actions with Biden himself.
Republicans argue that such admissions raise serious constitutional concerns. They claim unelected officials may have exercised powers reserved for the president, potentially undermining the legitimacy of executive decisions. Paul has proposed that the courts could ultimately decide the issue, particularly if someone like Fauci is indicted and tries to use a potentially invalid pardon as a defense.
While Biden’s allies defend the autopen’s use as consistent with past administrations, critics within the GOP are not satisfied. They view the matter as one of accountability and transparency, framing it as a possible abuse of executive power and a scandal of historic significance.
