What is the list of president Bidens massive pardons at the end of his presidency by autopen
Executive summary
President Biden’s administration granted pardons and commutations across his term, including a large batch in January 2025; Republican House investigators say many of those final-day clemency actions were signed using an autopen and therefore are “invalid,” while legal experts and past DOJ guidance say the method of affixing a signature does not itself void a pardon [1] [2] [3].
1. What the House GOP report claims: “Autopen” makes pardons void
The House Oversight Committee’s October 2025 report asserts that executive actions signed with an autopen were executed without proper documentation or presidential authorization and calls those autopen-signed pardons and commutations “invalid,” urging the Justice Department to review them and consider accountability for aides [4] [2].
2. The Justice Department’s official list and the January 19, 2025 batch
The Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney maintains a running list of pardons and commutations granted by President Biden across 2021–2025 and identifies January 19, 2025 as a notable date when many clemency actions were recorded, underscoring the timing that fuelled subsequent scrutiny [1].
3. Constitutional and legal context: signature method is not dispositive
Constitutional scholars and DOJ opinions from prior administrations emphasize that the power to pardon is presidential and the Constitution does not require a handwritten signature for a pardon to be valid; therefore, use of an autopen alone is not a clear legal basis to nullify clemency [3] [5].
4. Partisan lines and contested evidence
Republican investigators, led by Oversight Chairman James Comer, framed the autopen findings as evidence of presidential incapacity and staff usurpation of authority; Democrats on the committee, and several witnesses, disputed that conclusion and said Biden authorized the actions and knew of the autopen use—making this a starkly partisan dispute with competing narratives in the public record [2] [4] [6].
5. Reporting on scale and substance: thousands vs. “massive” pardons
Some outlets and political figures characterize the end‑of‑term clemencies as extraordinarily large—reports allege thousands of commutations and pardons, including routine commutations and high-profile grants to family or allies—but available government lists and reporting emphasize specific batches (e.g., Jan. 19, 2025) rather than an indiscriminate “mass” without documentation in the public record [1] [7] [8]. The Oversight report claims broad scope; other reporting focuses on particular controversial names and procedural questions [4] [8].
6. Precedent: autopen use is historically common
Media fact-checking and legal commentary note that presidents have used autopens and that sample signatures appear in federal records for previous administrations; critics’ focus on the device therefore rests more on process and alleged lack of documentation than on a settled legal rule that autopen=invalid [5] [9].
7. What remains in dispute and what sources don’t settle
Open questions include: (a) whether any individual pardons were issued without Biden’s substantive approval, (b) the precise number of clemencies signed by autopen versus hand-signed, and (c) whether DOJ will or can legally reverse clemency; current reporting documents allegations and committee conclusions but does not provide court rulings invalidating Biden’s pardons [4] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention any final court decision reversing a Biden pardon.
8. Political implications and ensuing legislation
Republicans have used the controversy to press legislation banning autopen use for bills, executive orders, pardons and commutations (the “BIDEN Act”) and to argue for investigations; supporters of preserving autopen authority point to continuity with past practice and constitutional limits on undoing predecessor pardons [10] [3].
9. How to read competing claims as a consumer of news
Treat the committee’s conclusions as a partisan-produced report that raises process concerns (documentation, chain of approval) and alleges impropriety; treat legal expert commentary and prior DOJ guidance as countersaying the mere use of an autopen is not itself dispositive of legality. Both positions are reported in primary sources: the Oversight report [4] [2] and legal/academic reactions noting constitutional limits and precedent [3] [5].
10. Bottom line
There is documented controversy over Biden-era clemencies issued near the end of his term and over the use of an autopen for many of those documents; Republicans say that makes them void and demand DOJ action, while legal experts and Justice Department precedent argue method of signature does not automatically invalidate presidential pardons—no final legal judgment nullifying those pardons appears in the cited reporting [4] [2] [3] [1].