The Department of Justice is now actively reviewing the legality of several controversial pardons issued in the final hours of Joe Biden’s presidency, following an internal investigation led by senior DOJ official Ed Martin. At the heart of the scrutiny: the use of an autopen to issue what may amount to thousands of clemency grants — including pre-emptive pardons for Biden allies, family members, and high-profile figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci and members of the January 6 Committee.
Martin, while not opposed to the use of an autopen in principle, maintains that its use must be based on clear, documented authorization from a fully competent president. His team is now reviewing whether such legal standards were met — and whether Biden was cognitively capable of issuing those orders.
According to Martin, a senior Democratic whistleblower has identified a core group of individuals involved in the clemency process, naming prominent figures like Anita Dunn, Bob Bauer, Neera Tanden, Elizabeth Warren, and Ron Klain. More directly involved, however, were Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients, White House Counsel Ed Siskel, and Staff Secretary Stefanie Feldman — all of whom allegedly managed the operational chain of command behind the mass pardons.
HOLY SMOKES: This New York Times reporting on the Biden White House chain of command authorization for use of the autopen is NUTS.
“Assistants” were responsible for notifying the autopen manager about Biden’s instructions — but they weren’t even present for those instructions. pic.twitter.com/5jkAzd37M3
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 14, 2025
Documents released via the National Archives — and reviewed by The New York Times — show a troubling pattern. Biden reportedly gave verbal instructions during late-night meetings, including one on January 19 in the White House residence that lasted until 10 p.m. Those decisions were then translated into “blurbs” — short summaries drafted not by staff who were present in the room, but by assistants of those senior officials. These summaries were passed through multiple layers of staff, ultimately leading to Zients approving the use of the autopen at 10:31 p.m., just three minutes after receiving the final draft.
Critics say this process exposes serious constitutional issues. The power to grant pardons is exclusive to the President — it cannot be delegated or vaguely inferred. Yet, the emails indicate that staffers, not Biden, finalized and authorized many of the clemency actions. According to Martin, the process lacks a necessary paper trail of Biden’s direct approval. That puts the legal validity of some of the pardons — particularly those issued for political allies — in question.
Wait what pic.twitter.com/JIJCHLwg50
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) July 14, 2025
More troubling still is the question of Biden’s mental fitness at the time. Multiple public incidents, including Biden admitting he was unaware he had signed key executive orders, and the fact that his physician recently invoked the Fifth Amendment before Congress, cast further doubt on his capacity to execute his constitutional duties.
Despite Biden’s own insistence in a New York Times interview that he “made every decision” and used the autopen due to the “volume” of cases, the internal email trail paints a different picture: one of aides coordinating decisions and legal signatures largely independent of presidential oversight. This includes the pardons of individuals like Fauci, who have drawn political fire from the incoming Trump administration.
BREAKING: Biden’s pardons of the January 6th committee were signed by autopen at the direction of an assistant pic.twitter.com/KQBylTlz0m
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 14, 2025
The White House continues to deflect, with its communications team insisting the process was legitimate and “standard.” However, as more details emerge, the pressure is building on Congress to investigate the matter publicly. Legal experts and constitutional scholars warn that if it’s determined Biden did not personally authorize the use of the autopen on specific cases, many of the clemency actions could be declared invalid.
