Fact check: Did the committee find any evidence of improper auto-pen use by Biden during his presidency?

1. How the autopen allegation entered public view and why it grabbed headlines

The allegation entered public view as a political cudgel after the White House display change and subsequent commentary by former President Trump, who framed autopen use as evidence of cognitive decline or abdication of responsibility. The visual replacement of Biden’s portrait with an image of his autopen signature was widely reported on September 24–25, 2025, and amplified the claim ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Media coverage from Reuters, Newsweek, and foreign outlets documented the public spectacle and the political framing, but these stories largely repeated the claim rather than presenting a committee’s investigatory findings ^{[2] [3] [5]}.

2. What the reporting actually documents about autopen use in the White House

Multiple reports note that autopen devices are sometimes used in the White House to sign routine or high-volume documents, and that the Biden team acknowledged staff used an autopen for some signatures after decisions were made. Reporting explicitly describes autopen use as a procedural tool, not proof of illicit delegation of decision-making authority ^{[1] [5] [2]}. The stories emphasize customary practice—autopen use across administrations—while flagging political opponents’ claims that specific uses were improper. None of the items provided asserts a committee corroborated improper or unaware use by Biden.

3. The ex-aide account that complicates the narrative

A former aide is reported to have confirmed that staff used an autopen to affix Biden’s signature on some documents, but the aide said this occurred only after the President had made the decisions, framing the practice as routine and administrative rather than a substitution of presidential judgment ^[5]. That account undercuts a core political claim—that autopen signatures equate to the President being uninvolved—by presenting contemporaneous staff authorization as the explanation. The aide’s account appears in the same timeframe as public criticisms, underscoring conflicting narratives in media coverage ^[4].

4. What Reuters and other mainstream outlets reported about evidence and awareness

Reuters and other mainstream outlets reported the political accusations but noted the lack of evidence that Biden was unaware of actions taken in his name, and they did not report a formal committee finding of improper conduct ^[2]. These outlets framed the autopen story as a disputed political narrative rather than an established investigative conclusion. Their coverage on September 24, 2025, stressed contradictions between the accusations and available documentation or witness statements, leaving the question of improper autopen use open due to absence of forensic or committee-based proof ^[2].

5. The claim of an ordered investigation and what it does and does not mean

Newsweek reported that former President Trump ordered an inquiry into Biden’s autopen use, invoking concerns about cognitive decline; an ordered investigation is not itself a finding of improper conduct and the provided materials contain no published committee report verifying wrongdoing ^[3]. Political motivations for initiating probes are common, and the mere existence of an inquiry—especially one driven by a political opponent—does not substitute for transparent, evidentiary committee findings. The sources show political actors leveraging inquiries for narrative advantage without releasing conclusive results in these pieces ^{[3] [5]}.

6. Broader institutional practices and what reporting omits but matters

The reporting notes that autopen use has historical precedent across administrations, yet it omits systematic documentation of which categories of documents are properly autopen-signed, whether presidential delegation orders were recorded, and any forensic authentication of signatures in contested cases ^{[2] [1]}. These omissions matter because proving improper autopen use requires chain-of-custody records, delegation authorizations, and possibly forensic signature analysis—none of which are present in the provided excerpts. The absence of those technical elements leaves a factual gap that political rhetoric cannot fill.

7. Comparing claims, sources, and the evidentiary record

Across the provided sources—the White House imagery pieces, Reuters, Newsweek, and foreign reports—the common throughline is political dispute and incomplete evidence rather than a committee’s definitive finding of misconduct ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Some accounts present staff acknowledgment of autopen use after presidential decisions; other pieces emphasize political accusations and an inquiry being ordered. No source in the materials you supplied claims a committee concluded Biden engaged in improper autopen use or was unaware of actions for which his signature was applied.

8. Bottom line: What can be stated with confidence and what remains unresolved

Based on the material provided, the confident conclusion is straightforward: there is no documented committee finding that President Biden improperly used an autopen or was unaware of actions he signed during his presidency in these sources. Significant unresolved issues remain—such as the specific documents autopen-signed, formal delegation records, and any forensic authentication—that would be necessary to substantiate allegations beyond political claim-making ^{[2] [5]}. Additional primary-source documents or an official committee report would be required to change this assessment.