Introduction
This article was flagged for fact-checking due to contentious claims about President Joe Biden’s use of the autopen to authorize official documents, specifically related to presidential pardons—including the high-profile pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. Public scrutiny and recent statements from political figures have reopened debates about the legality, transparency, and intent behind the use of autopen by the Biden administration. The analysis below aims to deliver clarity on these claims and address the central user question: Did President Biden use the autopen when pardoning his son?
Historical Context
The autopen is a device introduced decades ago to facilitate signing volumes of official paperwork—ranging from letters to legislation—when the president is unavailable for a hand-written signature. Its use stretches back to presidents such as Truman and Kennedy, and became the subject of controversy in 2011 when President Obama used it to sign a debt ceiling bill while abroad. The debate intensified under President Biden, whose administration faced scrutiny over whether sufficient oversight and personal approval were present for documents, especially pardons, signed by autopen.
Fact-Check Specific Claims
Claim #1: President Biden used an autopen when pardoning his son, Hunter Biden
The article and associated commentary imply or raise questions about whether President Biden utilized an autopen to pardon his son, Hunter Biden. According to the latest and most reputable research, President Joe Biden did grant a pardon to his son on December 1, 2024. Crucially, this pardon was personally hand-signed by President Biden and not authorized using the autopen device. While President Biden used the autopen for numerous other official actions, the pardon for his son stands out as an exception, negating the suggestion that it was done by autopen. (oversight.heritage.org)
Claim #2: President Biden’s use of the autopen for official documents, including pardons, is unlawful or delegitimizes the actions taken
The article references statements, particularly from former President Donald Trump, suggesting that documents or pardons signed with the autopen could be “void” or without legal effect. This claim does not stand up to legal analysis or historical precedent. U.S. law and the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel have consistently upheld that the use of the autopen—when authorized with the president’s intention—is lawful and constitutionally valid. The practice has been employed in multiple administrations and no court has invalidated actions based solely on the use of the autopen. (theguardian.com, pbs.org)
Claim #3: Concerns within the Biden administration and Department of Justice about the approval process for autopen-signed pardons and clemency
Internal White House emails and Justice Department communications reveal that senior staff and officials did, in fact, express concern about the processes surrounding autopen use—particularly the thorough confirmation of President Biden’s intent before a signature was affixed. Staff secretary Stef Feldman reportedly demanded concrete evidence of presidential consent for each document signed by autopen. Similarly, DOJ officials pushed for more vetting and communication before clemency actions were finalized. These concerns reflected a desire for procedural rigor, not a systemic breakdown or abuse. This context is crucial and sometimes lost in partisan interpretations. (axios.com)
Claim #4: Assertions about President Biden’s mental fitness and staff making decisions for him regarding pardons and clemency
Some commentary in the article alleges that President Biden was “non compos mentis” and that others made decisions in his place. While these claims have circulated in public discourse, no credible evidence has been produced showing that President Biden was uninvolved or unaware of pardons processed during his administration. President Biden has directly addressed such concerns by affirming, “I made every single one of those.” These allegations remain unsubstantiated and largely speculative. (theguardian.com)
Conclusion
This fact check reveals that some of the central claims in the article and broadcast segment contain elements of missing context and, in some cases, misinformation. While the use of the autopen is a routine and legal aspect of White House administration, the notion that President Biden used it to pardon his son is not supported by evidence; the pardon for Hunter Biden was directly hand-signed by the president. Ongoing concern about White House processes and internal vetting did prompt extra scrutiny and debate, but the legality of autopen use remains well-established. Assertions about President Biden’s mental competence and staff overreach are speculative and not substantiated by available facts.
If you have news you’d like reviewed, you can submit your requests for free and help make the information ecosystem more accountable.
Take Action Now
Stay informed and help fight misinformation. Download the DBUNK App to submit your news and social media posts for live fact-checks.
Link to Original Article
Read the original reporting here: https://www.foxnews.com/media/report-alleging-top-biden-officials-raised-concerns-over-autopen-resurfaces-after-trump-terminates-documents
