What pardons did President Joe Biden sign using an autopen and when?
Executive summary
Public records list multiple dates on which President Joe Biden granted pardons; the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney shows clemency actions on April 26, 2022; Dec. 30, 2022; Sept. 14, 2023; Dec. 20, 2023; Apr. 24, 2024; July 26, 2024; Dec. 1 and Dec. 12, 2024; and Jan. 19, 2025 [1]. Multiple news organizations and investigations have reported that many of those documents bore a mechanically reproduced signature (an autopen) and that Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have deemed autopen-signed actions “void,” while legal experts and fact-checkers say autopen use has longstanding precedent and does not automatically invalidate pardons [2] [3] [4].
1. What the official record shows on dates of Biden pardons
The Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney publishes a list of pardons granted by President Biden with specific release dates; entries on that DOJ list include April 26, 2022; December 30, 2022; September 14, 2023; December 20, 2023; April 24, 2024; July 26, 2024; December 1 and December 12, 2024; and January 19, 2025 [1]. The DOJ list is the primary public ledger of federal clemency actions and is the baseline for any discussion of when pardons were issued [1].
2. Which pardons have been reported as signed with an autopen
Media outlets and congressional investigators have focused particular attention on the pardons released Jan. 19, 2025, and on other late-term actions; reporting and an Oversight Committee probe say many of the clemency documents bore an autopen-produced signature rather than an individualized handwritten signature [2] [3]. Axios and other reporting also state that the autopen was used for some family pardons and other controversial last‑minute actions [5].
3. What the Oversight Committee concluded and why it matters politically
The GOP-led House Oversight Committee’s October 2025 report asserts that staff authorized use of the autopen and characterizes autopen-signed executive actions as “void” because they found gaps in contemporaneous documentation of presidential consent; the committee urged DOJ review and possible investigation of aides who handled the autopen process [2] [6]. That finding is political and investigatory: the committee frames autopen use as evidence of mismanagement and alleged concealment of the president’s condition [2] [6].
4. Legal and historical context: precedent and expert views
Legal scholars and fact-checkers say autopen use is longstanding and lawful and that the Constitution does not require a hand-written signature for pardons; a 2005 Justice Department memo and academic commentary support the notion that a president may authorize another to affix his signature and that autopen-signed pardons are generally valid under current law [3] [4]. Stanford Law School and other commentators note that the pardon power in Article II is broad and that a successor cannot simply “void” predecessors’ pardons because of an autopen signature [7] [4].
5. Conflicting narratives and partisan amplification
Former President Trump and conservative groups amplified claims that autopen-signed pardons were invalid and have announced efforts to declare them “terminated,” arguing Biden lacked involvement; media fact-checks and legal experts counter that those claims misstate the law and precedent [8] [9] [4]. The Oversight Committee’s findings and partisan statements exist alongside testimony from Democrats and some White House witnesses who say the president authorized actions, highlighting a sharp political split over interpretation of the same documents [2] [6].
6. What the available sources do not settle
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, item‑by‑item public list explicitly stating which individual pardons were physically autopen-signed versus hand-signed beyond the reporting on specific batches [1] [5]. Sources also do not show a court ruling invalidating any Biden pardon due to autopen use; fact-checkers and constitutional scholars cited maintain that autopen use, by itself, does not nullify clemency [4] [3].
7. Why this continues to matter
The dispute blends legal technicalities, institutional norms and partisan strategy: Republicans treat autopen use as proof of misgovernance and seek investigations [2], while legal experts and historical practice blunt the claim that autopen signatures void pardons [3] [4]. The practical stakes—whether particular pardons can be reversed—remain grounded in constitutional law and DOJ practice, not solely in partisan declarations [7] [4].
Summary takeaway: Official Justice Department records list specific pardons and dates [1]; reporting and committee probes document substantial autopen use for some of those actions and heated partisan claims that the pardons are invalid [2] [5]; independent legal analysis and fact-checks say autopen signatures have legal precedent and do not automatically void pardons [3] [4].