A government watchdog has ignited a firestorm by alleging that the Biden administration employed an

autopen—a sophisticated electromechanical device used to reproduce a signature—to sign nearly all of former President Joe Biden’s executive orders. This explosive claim, brought to light by a report from the Oversight Project (a division of the Heritage Foundation), raises serious questions about who was truly at the helm of decision-making during Biden’s tenure and whether unelected staffers were effectively running the presidency.

In this in‑depth investigation, we break down the allegations, explore the legal and constitutional implications, and assess what this controversy means for transparency and accountability in the highest levels of government. We also examine reactions from key political figures and the broader impact on the public’s trust in executive leadership.

I. The Autopen Allegation: Unmasking the Hidden Hand

At the center of this controversy is the autopen—a device designed to replicate a person’s signature with exact precision. While its use is not inherently controversial and is legally acceptable in certain contexts, its application to sign critical legal documents without the principal’s direct involvement has raised serious concerns about authenticity and accountability. According to the Oversight Project’s report, nearly every document bearing President Biden’s signature (with the notable exception of the letter announcing his withdrawal from the 2024 race) appears to have been produced using an autopen.

The report features side‑by‑side comparisons of Biden’s signatures, suggesting a striking uniformity that could indicate automated production. “WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY,” the report boldly declared on X, implying that the real decision‑makers were not Biden himself but rather the aides operating the autopen.

This claim has fueled speculation about Biden’s cognitive state and raised unsettling questions: Was the former president too impaired to sign documents personally? Were his staffers given free rein to issue critical orders without his informed consent? Critics argue that if significant executive actions—such as orders, pardons, and policy directives—were signed by an autopen, the public might have been misled about who was truly in charge.