A new report from The New York Times has intensified scrutiny over former President Joe Biden’s use of mass pardons in the final months of his presidency, revealing that Biden did not personally review or approve each individual clemency case — despite the sweeping scope and political sensitivity of many of the decisions.
According to the report, Biden “did not individually approve each name” on the lists of convicts released under categorical clemency actions, but instead approved general criteria or “standards” for who should qualify. Aides then handled the details, compiling updated lists of names based on information from the Bureau of Prisons — often without bringing those changes back to Biden for final review.
Rather than asking Biden to continually sign updated documents, staff members ultimately used the autopen — a mechanical signature device — to finalize and authorize hundreds of clemency grants and pardons. This included clemency for more than 1,500 individuals who had been placed on home confinement during COVID, pardons for over 2,500 non-violent drug offenders, and high-profile pardons for Hunter Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, members of the January 6 Committee, and others.
The Times reported that only Hunter Biden’s pardon was personally signed by the president. All other actions were authorized via autopen under the management of Staff Secretary Stefanie Feldman, who reportedly oversaw the mechanical process following oral directives from Biden during internal meetings.
These revelations have added fuel to investigations led by congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump, who have long questioned Biden’s mental acuity and the extent of his involvement in major executive decisions. Critics argue that the use of the autopen in these circumstances undermines the constitutional gravity of the presidential pardon power — particularly when applied to political allies and family members.
Trump responded by calling the autopen revelations “one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history” and has pledged further oversight.
In a press interaction, Biden attempted to downplay the controversy, saying:
“I made every single one of those. And — including the categories, when we set this up to begin with. And so — but I understand why Trump would think that, because obviously, I guess, he doesn’t focus much. Anyway, so — yes, I made every decision.”
Still, his comments appeared to reinforce the notion that the decisions were made categorically rather than individually — an approach that is legally permissible but now politically fraught, especially given the scale of pardons issued without personal signatures.
Adding further tension, Biden’s physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, declined to answer questions about the president’s health and his role in the clemency process during a recent congressional deposition. O’Connor invoked the Fifth Amendment and physician-patient privilege, a move that Republicans have seized on as further evidence of a lack of transparency within the former administration.
The legal consequences remain unclear. While the U.S. Constitution does not require that a president personally sign each pardon, critics argue that delegating the process — especially involving politically sensitive names — crosses a line of executive accountability and opens the door to abuse.
