I took all the decisions consciously
In the waning hours of a presidency, the tools of governance become the instruments of controversy. Joe Biden, speaking publicly for the first time in months with evident frustration, insists that every pardon and commutation issued in his final days was a conscious, deliberate act of his own will — and that the autopen device used to formalize them was his choice, not a workaround imposed by others. The dispute cuts to something older than any single administration: the question of who truly holds power at the threshold of its transfer, and whether the record of that power can ever be made fully legible.
- Biden broke his public silence with rare sharpness, calling Trump and Republicans outright liars for suggesting his staff had acted without his authorization.
- Trump responded by ordering a formal investigation into both Biden's mental capacity and the legality of the autopen use, placing the legitimacy of dozens of clemency decisions in legal jeopardy.
- A former Biden aide revealed that staff used the autopen not to bypass the president, but to avoid repeatedly interrupting him as prison records were updated in the final hours — a procedural choice that now carries enormous political weight.
- Biden's former White House physician invoked the Fifth Amendment before Congress, refusing to speak to the ex-president's mental state — a legally protected silence that nonetheless deepened the cloud over Biden's defense.
- The controversy has shifted from a dispute about a signature device to a broader contest over presidential fitness, institutional trust, and the durability of clemency granted in the final breath of an administration.
Joe Biden sat down with the New York Times in mid-July and went on offense. Angry and direct, he pushed back against Republican claims that his staff had used his electronic signature without permission to issue a wave of pardons and commutations at the end of his term. "I took all the decisions," he said flatly.
The facts, as Biden told them, were straightforward. In the final two days of his presidency, he held meetings to finalize clemency decisions. The volume of cases was enormous, so he authorized his team to use an autopen — a device that reproduces a signature electronically — to formalize the documents. A former aide added nuance: after Biden made his initial decisions, the Bureau of Prisons continued sending updated inmate information, prompting small revisions to the lists. Rather than return to the president each time, staff used the autopen for the final versions, treating it as routine.
Trump saw it differently. Back in the White House, he signed an order directing his counsel and attorney general to investigate whether Biden had the mental capacity to make those decisions and whether the autopen use was illegal. The implication was pointed: either Biden had been unfit to decide, or his staff had acted beyond their authority.
The controversy sharpened when Dr. Kevin O'Connor, Biden's former White House physician, invoked the Fifth Amendment before the House of Representatives, declining to answer questions about the ex-president's mental state. The refusal was legally protected but politically damaging, lending weight to the very questions Biden was trying to dismiss.
What Biden was defending was larger than a signature device. He was asserting his own fitness and autonomy at the moment of his presidency's close — insisting the autopen was a practical solution to a logistical problem, not a symptom of incapacity. Whether that argument would outlast the investigation Trump had set in motion remained an open question.
Joe Biden sat down with the New York Times on a Thursday in mid-July and did something he rarely does anymore: he went on offense. The former president was angry, and he wanted people to know it. Donald Trump and other Republicans, he said, were lying when they suggested that his staff had used his electronic signature without his permission to issue a wave of pardons and sentence commutations at the end of his term. "I took all the decisions," Biden said flatly.
The controversy had been building for months. In the final two days of his presidency—January 18 and 19, 2025—Biden had held two meetings to finalize decisions on presidential clemency. The sheer volume of cases meant that formalizing each one would require his signature on hundreds of documents. So Biden instructed his team to use an autopen, a device that reproduces a person's signature electronically. On the evening of January 19, the final versions were signed this way, according to emails reviewed by the Times.
What happened next was predictable in its contours but sharp in its implications. Trump, now back in the White House, signed an order in early June directing his counsel and attorney general to investigate whether Biden had the mental capacity to make those decisions and whether the autopen use was illegal. The implication was clear: Biden had either been incapable of making sound judgments or had acted without proper authority. Either way, the legitimacy of the pardons themselves was now in question.
Biden's defense rested on a straightforward claim: the autopen was his idea, used with his full knowledge and consent. He had made the decisions consciously and deliberately. A former aide to Biden provided additional context that suggested the process was more complicated than a simple yes-or-no authorization. After Biden had made his initial decisions, the Bureau of Prisons continued to provide updated information about specific inmates. This new information sometimes led to small changes in the lists. Rather than asking the president to sign revised versions repeatedly, the staff decided to use the autopen for the final version. They treated it as routine procedure.
But routine or not, the decision had opened a door that Trump was now walking through. In late July, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, Biden's former White House physician, invoked the Fifth Amendment during testimony before the House of Representatives, refusing to answer lawmakers' questions about the ex-president's mental state and decision-making. The refusal to answer—a legal right, but a politically damaging one—suggested that the questions themselves were serious enough to warrant constitutional protection.
Biden's insistence that he had acted with full autonomy and consciousness was his answer to all of this. He was defending not just the pardons themselves, but his own fitness to have made them. The autopen, in his telling, was a practical tool for a practical problem, not evidence of anything sinister or incapacitating. What remained unclear was whether that explanation would be enough to settle the question, or whether the investigation Trump had ordered would continue to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the clemency decisions themselves.
Citas Notables
Biden stated he made all pardon decisions consciously and authorized the use of the autopen device due to the high volume of cases.— Joe Biden, in interview with New York Times
A former Biden aide explained that staff used the autopen for final versions after receiving updated prison information from the Bureau of Prisons.— Former Biden aide
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Biden feel the need to call Trump a liar about this? Couldn't he have just explained the autopen and moved on?
Because the accusation wasn't really about the autopen. Trump was suggesting Biden was either mentally unfit or acting without authority—that he'd lost control of his own presidency. That's not a technical question you can answer with procedure. It's an attack on his competence.
But Biden did use the autopen. So what's the lie?
The lie, in Biden's view, is the implication that he didn't know about it or didn't authorize it. He's saying: I made the decisions, I told them to use the device, I knew what was happening. The autopen was my tool, not something done behind my back.
Then why did his doctor refuse to answer questions about his mental state?
That's the part that complicates everything. Invoking the Fifth Amendment is legally sound, but it looks like you're hiding something. It gave Trump's investigation exactly what it needed—the appearance of a question worth protecting.
Do we know if the pardons themselves were controversial?
The source doesn't say. What matters here is that the pardons became a vehicle for a larger argument about whether Biden was in control of his own office in those final days.
And did Biden's explanation settle it?
No. He said what he needed to say, but the investigation was already underway. An explanation, no matter how clear, doesn't stop an investigation once it's started.