Former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen for signing pardons has sparked a firestorm of debate. In his final weeks in office, he granted clemency to over 1,500 individuals, but the method of signing these critical documents raises serious questions about accountability and executive authority.

According to Fox News, Biden defended this controversial practice in a recent interview with The New York Times, claiming he personally made every decision on the pardons. The sheer scale of this clemency action, described by the White House as the largest single-day act of its kind, has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans over the use of a mechanical signature device.

During the interview on Thursday, Biden insisted, “We’re talking about granting clemency to a whole lot of people.” While he may have a point about the logistical challenge, relying on an autopen for such weighty decisions feels like a shortcut that undermines the gravity of presidential power.

Autopen Use Sparks Ethical Concerns

Biden clarified that he didn’t individually approve each name for the broad categorical pardons. Instead, he set the standards for who would qualify for sentence reductions after extensive discussions with his team, leaving the final signatures to an automated pen.

His staff, according to reports, used the autopen to avoid repeatedly asking him to sign updated documents. This pragmatic excuse hardly reassures those of us who value the personal responsibility that should accompany executive actions, especially on matters of justice.

“I made every decision,” Biden asserted, emphasizing his involvement in the process. Yet, if a president isn’t physically signing each document, can we truly say the decision carries the full weight of personal accountability, or is this just a convenient way to dodge scrutiny?

Republican Backlash Gains Momentum

Republicans have not held back in criticizing Biden’s reliance on this technology for official acts. President Donald Trump, in June, directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether this practice was tied to concerns about Biden’s mental capacity, calling it a potential scandal of historic proportions.

Trump labeled the autopen use “inappropriate,” even for lesser documents like ambassadorships, arguing that recipients deserve a real signature. When a president’s personal touch is replaced by a machine, it’s hard not to wonder if we’re witnessing a troubling erosion of trust in our institutions.

“This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history,” Trump wrote in a memo to the Department of Justice.

Questions of Authority and Intent

Trump further argued that using an autopen risks hiding who truly wields executive power, especially if it’s meant to mask a leader’s limitations.

Biden’s aides reportedly used the autopen to apply his signature across thousands of documents, facilitating sweeping policy changes. For conservatives, this smacks of a bureaucratic end-run around transparency, prioritizing efficiency over the solemn duty of leadership.

The former president’s defense hinges on the volume of clemency actions, as he noted the challenge of handling “a whole lot of people.” But volume shouldn’t excuse a process that leaves so many wondering if the executive branch is operating on autopilot.

Legacy of Controversy Lingers

Interestingly, Biden only hand-signed one pardon during this final spree, which was also his most contentious. This selective personal involvement only deepens skepticism about why the rest were left to a machine—surely, each case deserved equal consideration.

For many on the right, this episode highlights a troubling trend of progressive leaders bending rules under the guise of practicality. While we can empathize with the demands of the office, executive power isn’t a checkbox to be ticked off by a gadget.

As this debate unfolds, the core issue remains: should a president’s signature—a symbol of personal judgment—ever be automated on matters of justice? In a nation built on checks and balances, even the smallest shortcut can set a precedent that chips away at our foundational trust.