The “autopen scandal” surrounding Joe Biden’s final months in office is gaining steam, particularly after The New York Times effectively confirmed what many had suspected: mass presidential pardons were signed off without Biden’s individual approval. In that context, House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) is leading an investigation into who was truly making decisions while Biden’s mental and physical health appeared to decline—an effort now drawing deflection attempts from corners of the media desperate to shield the former president.
Cue NBC News, which published a piece this week attempting to turn the tables. Their accusation? Comer himself didn’t sign some of his letters and subpoena notices personally—he used a digital signature.
The House Oversight Committee chair used a digital signature to send out letters and subpoena notices related to the Biden autopen investigation. https://t.co/Worzea6MN6
— NBC News (@NBCNews) July 15, 2025
There’s a fundamental difference between a congressional letter bearing a digital signature and a presidential pardon being executed with an autopen, potentially without the president’s awareness. But that nuance appears lost—or conveniently ignored—in NBC’s attempt to muddy the waters.
To start, a digital signature is an authenticated, traceable action. It is still a legal, acknowledged signature by the sender. In contrast, the core issue in the Biden controversy is not the method of signing—it’s whether the president even knew who was being pardoned. The Times story explicitly notes that Biden merely approved broad “categories” for pardons, and that staff finalized and signed them via autopen—raising legitimate questions about presidential awareness, intent, and accountability.
NBC News’s report subtly avoids those distinctions by focusing on “subpoena notices” instead of actual subpoenas. But that phrasing is intentional. Sources familiar with Comer’s investigation confirm that original subpoenas were wet-signed, as required by House procedure. Any digital markings appeared on follow-up communications—not the legal instruments themselves.
Ryan, Have you ever used Adobe? In your life? Like ever? https://t.co/GlnFsCoH6q pic.twitter.com/vvBiTOoYlJ
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) July 15, 2025
That’s a critical difference: a signed subpoena carries the weight of congressional authority and must meet formal standards. A letter of notification or notice of compliance deadlines does not. NBC’s choice to blur those categories undermines their entire argument.
Online observers were quick to call out the reporting. Some questioned whether the reporters understood how Adobe e-signatures work, while others noted the glaring difference between a president delegating life-altering pardons and a congressman using a digital signature for logistical correspondence.
The attempt to flip this controversy on Comer lacks substance and falls flat under scrutiny. Regardless of the legal implications—which, in the case of pardons, are minimal due to the Constitution’s broad grant of clemency power—the political and ethical questions are enormous. Who was running the West Wing in Biden’s final months? Were pardons granted to politically connected individuals without the president’s direct review? And if so, how far did this delegation go?
