Questions intensified over the validity of former President Joe Biden’s preemptive pardon of Dr. Anthony Fauci, as new reports revealed it was signed via autopen with late-night approval from Biden’s chief of staff amid probes into the ex-president’s mental state.
Reportedly, White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients emailed approval at 10:31 p.m. on January 19, 2025, for the autopen to sign pardons, including those of Fauci. The email allegedly stated, “I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons,” according to a Fox News report that cited a New York Times article.
President Donald Trump, responding on July 14, reportedly told White House reporters the autopen use constituted possibly “one of the biggest scandals that we have had in 50 to 100 years,” adding, “I guarantee you he knew nothing about what he was signing, I guarantee you.”
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told Fox News the developments exposed Biden’s lack of trustworthiness, accusing his administration of “the most egregious cover up scheme in American politics” and predicting, “The truth will come out about who was, in fact, running the country sooner or later.”
The New York Times reported July 13 that Biden, in his first interview on the controversy, claimed he orally authorized the Fauci pardon and others, labeling Trump and Republicans “liars” for alleging aides misused the autopen. Biden told the Times, “I made every single one of those,” and explained the autopen was employed for efficiency.
Emails reviewed by the Times, obtained from the National Archives for investigations, outlined a process in which Biden purportedly decided orally in meetings, with summaries relayed to subordinates from their superiors for autopen execution.
The aides who drafted “blurbs” that set the pardons into motion were not present in the room with Mr. Biden, according to the lists of meeting participants reported by the Times. The corresponding emails reviewed by the Times apparently imply that Zients and White House counsel Ed Siskel relayed what Biden had said to the assistants, who then documented it.
After roughly half an hour, with the relevant material prepared, Zients sent an email stating, “I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons,” according to Fox News.
This verbiage raises several questions, including: Why was Zients approving the use of the autopen, not Biden? Did Biden actually consent to the pardon of Fauci, along with Retired General Mark Milley and members of the January 6th committee?
Biden told the Times he took this preemptive action to protect the recipients from possible vindictive probes from Trump, explaining, “Everybody knows how vindictive he is, so we knew that they would do what they are doing now.”
If Biden truly gave consent to the pardons, legal minds argue that his words alone would suffice to meet the constitutional standard for a pardon.
Notably, the Constitution does not require that a president write down the pardon, nor does it explicitly require him to be in a sound mental state when issuing it.
Stanford Law professor Bernadette Meyler stated on the Stanford Law Review site, “The Constitution does not even require that the pardon be written, so the idea that the signature is by autopen rather than by handwritten signature seems not relevant to the constitutionality because Article II just says that the President has the power to pardon.”
However, other legal minds have found it to be unwise not to write down pardons.
A 1929 Office of the Solicitor General memo said a pardoned person should be given a “token” to show he was pardoned; however, “that need not have the President’s autograph. If it shall bear the facsimile signature and be certified by an official having charge of the records as having been issued by the President, or by his direction, that shall be sufficient.”
A March 2025 PolitiFact review, referencing several documents, including a 2005 Justice Department memo, confirmed that there is no need for a president’s manual signature, citing historical examples such as Abraham Lincoln’s subordinates signing.
The text of ArtII.S2.C1.3.1 says, “The President shall… have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Roger Stone, pardoned by Trump during his first term, told podcaster Michael Malice he received his pardon via phone call in December 2020. Unlike Biden’s actions, Stone’s pardon was not ordered in the waning hours of a presidential administration, and Trump’s mental faculties were not in doubt. Stone said that the President informed the political strategist that he would eventually receive a physical pardon notice, but he gave no indication as to whether he ever received a certificate of his pardon.
In either case, no party has disputed the constitutional soundness of the verbal or written pardon.
However, when Trump commuted Stone’s prison sentence earlier that year, some Democrats were outraged. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly called for legislation that would limit the Presidential pardon powers.
Biden granted 4,245 clemency acts, 96 percent in his last months, per Pew Research Center.
Investigations by the Trump administration, Justice Department and Congress started shortly after Trump assumed office and scrutinized whether aides exploited the autopen to hide Biden’s cognitive decline, evidenced by his June 2024 debate struggles leading to his reelection withdrawal.
Biden rejected the probes as Trump’s ploy to shift focus from his administration’s woes, telling the Times, “They have done so badly. They have lied so consistently about almost everything they are doing. The best thing they can do is try to change the focus and focus on something else.”
Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and U.S. Rep. James Comer, are expanding their scrutiny of concealed impairments, with Comer subpoenaing figures such as Biden’s White House physician, Kevin O’Connor.