Biden's Autopen Was Used Illegally: Analysis

House Republicans released a report claiming the Biden administration's use of an autopen shows Joe Biden wasn't actually making decisions while president. Joining us to discuss is Bobby Anne Cox, civil rights attorney, fellow at the Brownstone Institute and legal analyst. So Bobby Anne, always great to see you. Good afternoon. Um, you know, there is president of using the autopin by past presidents. Uh, so in this case, Republicans alleged former President Biden's mental decline was covered up. uh so some his some of his executive actions should be cancelled out. So my question to you is does a president's cognitive abilities factor into the legality of authorizing the autopin? >> Well, sure. Yes, it does. I mean, if if you have somebody that's um waning in their mental capacity and they're not really aware of what they're doing uh and they're signing legal documents uh with the power and the force of the presidency of the United States, then obviously yes, their their mental capacity does come into question. Uh their mental capacity is an issue and um that's exactly what this investigation by this House committee was doing. you know, they were looking into um in particular President Biden's mental capacity and his use of the auto pen uh which is basically a machine that signs uh someone's signature and uh whether or not he knew what was being signed by autopen uh whether or not he authorized what was being signed by auto pen. Um and this investigation was very detailed uh that the House Oversight Committee performed. Uh they just issued their report yesterday. Uh excuse me. And basically it says that this was a a huge problem and they had uh multiple witnesses uh testified. I believe they had uh depositions uh 47 hours worth of depositions that they went through uh in this investigation. So it was very detailed. Um, but you know, they were interviewing people that were close to Biden uh during his presidency who were working with him and for him in the White House. Uh, and a lot of that testimony is is showing that, you know, there were instances where people did not even speak to President Biden before having uh the authority to use the autopen. Um, and these were things that were, you know, second and thirdand conversations and without the the person actually uh talking to Biden to confirm that he was authorizing certain signatures by autopen. Uh, so yes, this this is a this is a big problem and um this certainly can lead to some legal challenges and ramifications hereafter. So those things detailed in the report does that constitute as evidence? Um can I ask you what kind of proof would be needed to show that an executive order was not personally approved by the president? >> Right. So you know you do need to have some sort of evidence. uh you know if you don't have any sort of a paper trail at all uh showing that the president authorized something to be signed and have his name affixed to a legal document. You don't have any emails uh you know showing his authorization. You don't have any uh recorded uh phone conversations. Uh you don't have any text messages uh showing that he authorized this or even that it was discussed uh and he gave the approval. uh you know if you don't have any evidence to back up any of these things uh that were signed by autopen that really opens the door to the question of well if he didn't authorize it we can't prove that he authorized it who did authorize it. Um and these testimonies that were given during this uh this oversight uh hearing committee investigation certainly could be used as evidence. I mean, you know, when when you give a deposition, uh you do have to, you know, swear an oath that you will tell the truth uh and the whole truth. And so, uh that can become evidence uh if this is going to turn into either an investigation by the Department of Justice or if legal action is going to be taken uh at some point down the road. Yes, for certain they can use some of this testimony that was given during this investigation because as I said, those people were testifying under oath. Uh so use it uh as evidence to to find out, you know, what is the truth? What was going on? Uh what did Biden know and not know? uh a and see if there was something that was illegal going on because you you cannot affix the signature of the president to a legal document uh without having specific authorization from the president. That would be an illegal uh illegal move and and unconstitutional. Our constitution is clear certain actions are taken by the president uh not to be delegated to other people or other branches of the government. Uh so it is a serious question. Absolutely. >> So what would be the legal consequences if it is uh in fact found that these executive actions were unauthorized? >> Right? So, you know, this means that if President Biden did not authorize the use of his signature by autopen on certain documents, whatever those documents are, whatever they say, uh would not actually have legal value. Uh so you know for example uh it has been shown that Biden used the auto pen or someone perhaps used the auto pen to sign his name to things like pardons uh and things like laws bills that then became law once he signed his name or the auto pen signed his name um and also just regular executive actions. I mean, if you think about it, there are a lot of things that the president does and has the power to do. Um, for example, appointing federal judges. Uh, only the president can appoint federal judges and those are lifelong appointments. Uh, and that's at all the levels of federal court, right? So, you've got the trial court level, you've got the appellet court level, and then you've got the Supreme Court level. um those are positions that are appointed by Biden in this instance by the president of the United States. So if the the auto pen uh was deemed to be authorized by someone other than him then all of these things that he uh that were signed by autopen that he did not authorize would not have legal validity. Uh which means the pardons would not be valid. uh the laws he signed or were signed by auto pen without his authorization would not be valid and any of the other executive functions like I said uh appointing federal judges is another big issue. So yes th those things if they weren't actually authorized by the president um would not have any legal effect. >> So I asked you earlier that past presidents have used the autopin um so I'm not a legal expert here. Can you just clarify for us? Uh, does a document signed by Otten carry the same authority as one physically signed by the president? >> That is a great question. Um, it actually has not been litigated thus far in our nation's history. There there is not uh any sort of a Supreme Court decision specifically about auto pens and the validity of auto pens. Um, you know, the the autopen was first used back in 2011 by uh President Obama who was abroad at the time of the the passing of a bill uh by Congress and he wanted to sign the bill uh but he was uh in Europe at the time and couldn't sign the bill until he came back to the United States. So that was the first time that he that a president authorized the use of the autopen machine to sign their name uh to a legal document. So that was back in 2011. Here we are in 2025. So it hasn't been that long that uh presidents have used auto pens. But um since we don't have a Supreme Court decision saying whether or not uh the use of the auto pen is legal and does have a binding effect like a regular wet signature by the president himself. Um that is still something that is being debated. I mean you have people on both sides arguing you know some are arguing that absolutely it is a legal way to sign a document uh by using the auto pen and then you have others that say no there you know there's nothing in the constitution that says that uh the president can delegate the authority for his signature on a legal document um and that delegation is either to another human being or to a machine to sign his name. So we have both sides arguing um opposite sides of that that question. Is it legal? We don't know. Um but that's something that perhaps we would see Scotas make a decision on you know if there if there is a legal challenge um and it is accepted by the courts. >> All right. So Bobby just finally generally speaking uh under what circumstances is using using an auto pen legally permitted and when is it not? Well, with the case of the president, you know, what we're seeing in this specific investigation, uh, you know, some some in the media and some critics uh, of this investigation into Biden's use of the auto pen are saying, well, you know, a lot of other presidents used it. You know, Obama used it, Trump has used it, uh, Biden used it. Uh, true. Yes. Now, uh, President Trump has stated that he too has used the auto pen, uh, but not for legal documents like signing laws or issuing a pardon. Um, more for things like, you know, signing a letter or or or an invitation to something. Um and you know we the the question and the main focus uh of what this House Oversight Committee uh just investigated with regards to President Biden um you know they were really focusing on the end of his presidency uh the last three months or so. And um the fact is is that if you look at the number of pardons uh that Biden issued in his presidency, which was, you know, only four years long, um he issued over 4,000 pardons. Uh many of which apparently were signed by autopen. And when you compare that to other presidents before him, uh you know, thus far, President Trump has issued in his first term and then now in 2025 approximately 1,700 uh pardons. Uh Barack Obama issued something like 1,900 pardons and he was president for eight years. Um so I think uh George W. Bush uh Bush 2, I think he only issued a couple hundred pardons uh during his presidency. So we see with Biden issuing over 4,200 pardons uh in just four years u many of which were issued you know in the last three months of his presidency. You know, this is why they've been investigating this in particular with the auto pen because uh the question has to be asked, you know, how can this president have issued uh you know, two and three and sometimes four times as many uh pardons as his predecessors. Uh so this is really what raised the red flag I believe and why the House Oversight Committee paid so much attention or is paying so much attention to uh the autopen use on signing pardons. Uh so yeah, this this is a really it's it's a big problem uh because according to the testimony and the report that was issued yesterday by the House committee, uh there is not uh much if any at all evidence showing that Biden authorized the use of the autopen with a lot of these signatures. Uh so yes, this this is a serious issue and um we're going to have to see how this plays out now that the Department of Justice has said that they're going to investigate it themselves. >> Yeah, we'll follow this closely, but imagine signing over 4,000 documents. Um that's that's a lot of signatures. Well, Bobby, I thank you for uh coming out to talk to us about this today. >> Yes. Thank you for having me. Have a great day. here as well.