David Sacks, an advisor on artificial intelligence under former President Donald Trump, claimed during a recent television interview that a prominent U.S. senator played a key role in the use of the autopen during Biden’s presidency. Without offering specific evidence, Sacks suggested the device had been employed to sign a number of important documents, including executive orders and presidential pardons, allegedly without Biden’s direct involvement.

The use of an autopen is not unprecedented. It has been employed by several presidents to handle routine or ceremonial correspondence. However, critics argue that it should not be used to authorize significant policy measures or legal actions, especially if the president is not fully engaged in the process.

Concerns have intensified following claims that the autopen may have been used in last-minute pardons and directives at the end of Biden’s term. Among these were reported clemency decisions related to individuals tied to politically sensitive investigations. Former President Trump has since questioned the validity of those orders, asserting that actions taken using an autopen might lack legal standing if the president was not directly involved.

The controversy was further fueled by the Oversight Project, a watchdog group that analyzed Biden’s signature across numerous official documents. The group alleges that a consistent autopen signature was used throughout his presidency, except on a key announcement when Biden withdrew from the 2024 election.

In response, House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) has begun seeking testimony from former Biden administration officials. Comer stated that if there is no voluntary cooperation, formal subpoenas may follow.

The Department of Justice has also opened a review. Ed Martin, recently appointed as pardon attorney and head of a DOJ working group, confirmed an ongoing investigation into the presidential autopen’s use. Martin noted that several people tied to the matter have retained legal counsel and that a whistleblower has come forward with allegations being taken seriously.

While the situation has sparked political debate, legal scholars note that the legitimacy of actions signed via autopen has been upheld in the past, provided they are authorized by the president. Still, the current review could influence how such tools are used in future administrations, especially regarding matters of national significance.

The issue remains under active investigation, with federal and congressional inquiries expected to continue in the coming months.