Politics Commentary
A controversy that once seemed confined to procedural trivia inside the West Wing has now exploded into one of the most serious constitutional and political scandals in modern American history. At the center of it all: President Joe Biden’s extensive use of an autopen to sign executive orders and pardons during the final years of his presidency—and the growing question of whether Biden himself even knew what was being signed in his name.
That question matters enormously, not just for Biden’s legacy, but for the legal status of the individuals who benefited from those actions. And among those individuals is Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman who served on the House January 6 committee and was later granted a pardon by Biden.
If the signatures were invalid—or worse, unauthorized—Cheney and others may find themselves in legal territory they assumed they had permanently escaped.
Trump Calls the Pardons “Void and Vacant”
President Donald Trump wasted no time responding to the revelations. In a blistering Truth Social post, Trump declared that Biden’s autopen-signed pardons were “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT,” arguing that Biden neither personally signed nor meaningfully approved the documents.
According to Trump, the issue is not merely mechanical. It is cognitive.
Trump claimed Biden “did not know anything about them,” asserting that the necessary documents were neither explained to nor approved by the president, and suggesting that individuals who facilitated those signatures may have committed crimes.
In Trump’s telling, the scandal is not about a machine—it is about who was actually running the presidency.
Why the Autopen Matters
The autopen itself is not new. Presidents from Thomas Jefferson onward have relied on aides to sign routine correspondence. In modern administrations, autopens have been used sparingly for ceremonial or time-sensitive matters, typically with explicit presidential authorization.
What makes the Biden situation different is scale, duration, and context.
Reports now indicate that Biden’s autopen was used to sign substantive executive actions and pardons, not merely letters or routine acknowledgments. Even more troubling: sworn testimony suggests that this occurred during a period when Biden’s mental acuity was visibly declining and increasingly questioned—even within Democratic circles.
That distinction is critical because the Constitution does not authorize anonymous governance.
Neera Tanden’s Testimony Changes Everything
The controversy escalated dramatically after Neera Tanden, former Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, testified under oath before the House Oversight Committee.
According to reports, Tanden admitted she was authorized to use and direct the use of Biden’s autopen from October 2021 through May 2023. She further acknowledged that she did not always confirm directly with Biden before authorizing its use.
That admission stunned lawmakers.
If accurate, it means that official presidential actions—including pardons—may have been executed without direct confirmation that the president approved them, raising profound constitutional questions.
In effect, the testimony suggests that senior aides may have exercised presidential power without presidential input.
Congressional Investigations Intensify
House Oversight Chairman James Comer has described the autopen revelations as central to what he believes was a coordinated effort to conceal Biden’s cognitive decline.
Comer has identified at least five Biden aides as key figures in this alleged effort and has suggested that the committee’s findings could eventually be used to challenge executive orders and pardons signed during the relevant period.
Meanwhile, Senator Eric Schmitt has formally demanded access to sealed autopen records, calling the matter “one of the most damning scandals in U.S. history.”
Schmitt’s argument is straightforward: if Biden was not mentally capable of approving actions, or if he was bypassed altogether, then those actions may not meet the constitutional requirement that the president personally exercise executive authority.
What This Means for Liz Cheney
Liz Cheney’s situation is uniquely sensitive.
She was not merely a passive recipient of a pardon. As a leading member of the January 6 committee, Cheney played an active role in an investigation that Trump and his allies have long argued was politically motivated and procedurally abusive.
Trump has now explicitly warned that members of what he calls the “Unselect Committee of Political Thugs” could be subject to investigation if their pardons are invalid.
If courts determine that Biden’s pardon of Cheney was improperly authorized—or not authorized at all—the legal shield she relies on could collapse.
Importantly, this does not mean Cheney has committed a crime. But it does mean that immunity she believed was settled may no longer be secure.
The Constitutional Question
At the heart of this controversy lies a simple but profound question:
What does it mean for a president to “sign” something?
Article I of the Constitution states that bills become law when the president “shall sign it.” While courts have tolerated autopen use in limited contexts, there is little precedent addressing whether aides can sign on a president’s behalf without the president’s knowledge or approval.
Legal scholars note two key issues:
- Authorization – Did Biden explicitly approve each action signed via autopen?
- Capacity – Was Biden mentally capable of giving informed consent at the time?
If the answer to either question is no, courts may be forced to confront the validity of those actions.
No Precedent, No Easy Answers
There is no clean precedent for unwinding presidential pardons en masse. Courts have historically treated pardons as nearly absolute. But those cases presume a conscious, deliberate act by the president.
This case challenges that assumption.
If the president neither knew nor approved the pardon, is it still valid? Or was the action ultra vires—beyond legal authority?
Legal experts say the issue would likely end up before the Supreme Court, especially if prosecutions are reopened or if pardoned individuals seek declaratory judgments affirming their immunity.
A Political and Institutional Earthquake
Beyond individual legal exposure, the autopen scandal threatens something larger: public confidence in the presidency itself.
If unelected aides exercised executive power while shielding a cognitively impaired president, the implications extend far beyond Biden or Trump. It would represent a breakdown in democratic accountability at the highest level of government.
That is why this issue refuses to fade.
It touches separation of powers, executive legitimacy, and the basic premise that the president—not staffers—governs the country.
What Happens Next
Several developments are likely in the coming months:
- Subpoenas for additional Biden aides
- Court challenges to specific pardons
- Possible DOJ reviews under the Trump administration
- Congressional referrals for potential misconduct
For Liz Cheney and others who received pardons, uncertainty now replaces confidence. Their legal status may depend not on political arguments, but on forensic questions about who authorized what—and when.
Conclusion
The Biden autopen revelations have transformed what once seemed like partisan rhetoric into a serious constitutional dispute with real-world consequences.
For Liz Cheney, the risk is no longer theoretical. If investigations confirm that her pardon was signed without Biden’s knowledge or approval, she could face renewed legal exposure—despite having believed the matter was closed.
This is not about vengeance or politics alone. It is about whether presidential power was exercised lawfully—or quietly transferred to unelected hands.
And until that question is answered, the fallout from the autopen scandal is only just beginning.