Questions of accountability swirl as it emerges that Joe Biden’s chief of staff approved the use of an autopen for high-profile pardons on the former president’s last day in office.

According to Fox News, Jeff Zients, Biden’s chief of staff, gave the green light for the automated signing device to execute preemptive pardons for figures like Anthony Fauci and Gen. Mark Milley.

This revelation, stemming from emails obtained by other outlets, raises serious concerns about who truly wielded executive power in Biden’s final hours. On Jan. 19, as Biden met with aides late into the night, it wasn’t him but Zients who finalized the autopen’s use just minutes after receiving a summary of decisions.

Autopen Approval Sparks Outrage

Zients’ email, sent at 10:31 p.m., explicitly stated, “I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons.” While some might argue this was mere administrative efficiency, it smells of a troubling delegation of presidential authority.

The autopen—a machine that mimics a signature—handled thousands of clemency acts, including broad categorical pardons where Biden reportedly didn’t even approve individual names. If true, this suggests a dangerous precedent where unelected staff could bypass the commander in chief on matters of justice.

Biden’s team issued 4,245 clemency acts during his term, with 96% crammed into his final months between October 2024 and January. Such a last-minute flurry, signed by machine, hardly screams transparency or accountability to the American public.

Trump Calls Out Massive Scandal

President Donald Trump didn’t mince words, calling this autopen fiasco potentially “one of the biggest scandals that we’ve had in 50 to 100 years.” His assertion that Biden likely “knew nothing about what he was signing” cuts to the heart of public trust in government.

Trump’s criticism, echoed in a memo ordering an investigation by Attorney General Pam Bondi, points to a deeper issue of whether Biden’s mental state necessitated such workarounds. While respecting personal health challenges, we must ask if this was a cover for incapacity rather than convenience.

The White House, under Trump, has doubled down, accusing Biden’s administration of orchestrating a historic cover-up. Spokesperson Harrison Fields noted that Biden’s trustworthiness has long been in question, from economic claims to personal health disclosures.

Who Was Really in Charge?

Fields’ statement that “the truth will come out about who was, in fact, running the country” isn’t just rhetoric—it’s a call for clarity. If aides, not the president, drove these decisions, the implications for democratic integrity are profound.

Trump’s own memo highlighted the autopen’s use as a tool to “conceal Biden’s cognitive decline and assert Article II authority.” While progressives might dismiss this as partisan sniping, the sheer volume of automated signatures demands answers, not excuses.

Interestingly, Trump admits to using an autopen for letters, but insists on personal signatures for binding documents. This contrast with Biden’s approach underscores a principled stance on executive responsibility that many conservatives will appreciate.

Public Trust at Stake

The timing of Trump’s initial accusations, starting in March and escalating with a formal probe in June, shows persistent concern over this issue. It’s not just about pardons for controversial figures like Fauci—it’s about the precedent for future administrations.

Conservatives, wary of unchecked bureaucratic power, see this as another example of progressive overreach, where process trumps principle. Yet, fairness demands we consider if Biden’s team genuinely believed this was a logistical necessity, even if misguided.

Ultimately, the autopen saga isn’t just a technicality; it’s a window into how power was managed—or mismanaged—in Biden’s waning days. Americans deserve to know if their elected leader, or an unelected aide, held the pen that shaped justice in those final hours.