In late 2025, controversy has grown significantly around former President Joe Biden’s final months in office, driven largely by assertions from House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer that unresolved constitutional and legal questions persist about his use of presidential power. Comer, a Republican congressman, claims that evidence gathered by his committee suggests Biden may not have been fully aware of or in control of all the executive actions attributed to him during the closing period of his presidency, particularly those signed using an autopen—a mechanical device that reproduces the president’s signature on official documents. Historically, the autopen has been used by presidents for routine matters when they are traveling or unavailable, but the crux of Comer’s argument is that its use in this case could mark a dramatic departure from precedent if Biden lacked understanding or intent behind authorized actions. These claims are anchored in the Oversight Committee’s report and transcribed interviews with former staffers, which allege that aides at times used the autopen without clear documentation of Biden’s informed approval, raising questions about constitutional legitimacy and accountability.

Comer’s case draws a sharp line between administrative convenience and constitutional authority. He has stressed that while past presidents occasionally delegated routine approvals via autopen, such delegation always presumed the president’s knowing consent. Comer argues that if evidence shows Biden did not understand or consciously authorize actions signed in his name, such autopen signatures could be invalid, and the executive acts themselves brought into legal doubt. He contends that senior White House aides may have exercised powers reserved by the Constitution exclusively for the president, potentially exposing them to legal scrutiny or liability. Comer’s narrative reframes the debate away from the mechanics of document signing toward whether the presidency was effectively exercised by someone other than the sitting president, which, if true, could constitute a profound constitutional crisis.

A significant turning point highlighted in this controversy relates to Biden’s widely criticized debate performance in 2024, which Comer and others point to as a catalyst for heightened concern over his fitness to serve. Though the Oversight Committee’s official documents and subsequent media coverage focus mostly on procedural questions around autopen use, Comer and certain Republican allies have connected public perceptions of Biden’s cognitive state to the legitimacy of actions taken late in his term. They argue that the debate intensified scrutiny of how decisions were made in the White House thereafter, especially when the president was not physically present or unequivocally directing staff. This sequence has been used to frame subsequent pardons, executive orders, and policy directives not just as controversial in content, but as potentially issued without appropriate presidential agency.

One of the most explosive aspects of Comer’s claims concerns the legal status of pardons and executive orders signed via autopen late in Biden’s presidency. Comer has publicly suggested that these documents can be challenged in court and “made null and void” if it can be shown they were signed without his full knowledge or consent. Such statements imply that traditional assumptions about presidential pardon power—often seen as nearly absolute and insulated—could be tested under novel legal theories tied to awareness and intent. Legal analysts note that overturning a pardon is extraordinarily difficult and historically unprecedented. Nevertheless, Comer’s position asserts that courts should consider not just how a document looks but whether the authority behind it was legitimately exercised by the president himself. This introduces a complex and largely uncharted legal question about the constitutional validity of autopen signatures under conditions of alleged diminished presidential awareness.

The autopen device itself has become a symbol and technical pivot point in the larger debate. Legal experts generally accept that the autopen’s use is constitutionally tolerable when it acts as a mechanical extension of the president’s deliberate will, effectively standing in when the president cannot sign each document personally. However, when questions arise about whether the president was capable of providing that deliberate will—whether due to cognitive decline or absence—the legitimacy of autopen use collapses into dispute. Comer’s allies argue that documentation gaps, lack of clear authorization records, and staff testimonies raise the possibility that executive authority might have been exercised by aides acting without constitutional legitimacy. Critics counter that autopen use has long been accepted practice and that no court has ever ruled that it, by itself, invalidates the authority of an executive action or pardon. The disagreement highlights the legal and constitutional complexity surrounding delegation of presidential authority.

Underlying the procedural and legal arguments is a deeper political and historical question: who was actually in charge of the executive branch during Biden’s final stretch in office. Comer and his supporters suggest that Biden’s inner circle may have effectively governed in his stead, making decisions and executing actions without meaningful presidential involvement. This narrative frames a potential constitutional crisis where unelected officials could have assumed powers reserved for the president. Such a scenario, if proven, would not only have legal ramifications for specific acts like pardons and executive orders but also broader implications for the integrity of American democratic systems and safeguards designed to ensure accountability at the highest level of government. As of the latest public reports, the Oversight Committee has not identified specific executive acts that courts have declared invalid, nor have formal legal challenges succeeded in overturning any of Biden’s actions. However, the investigation continues, with ongoing interviews, document reviews, and public debate around the intersection of presidential capacity, constitutional authority, and the limits of executive delegation.