Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Is there an ongoing investigation into automatic PINs related to Joe Biden?
Executive summary
An active set of probes and political actions in 2025 focused on former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen — an automatic signature device — and whether aides directed its use without his full awareness; President Trump ordered a White House counsel-led review and House Republicans (led by Oversight Chair James Comer) ran a months‑long investigation that produced a GOP report urging the Justice Department to consider a probe of Biden-era actions [1] [2]. Biden has publicly defended that he authorized autopen use for many clemency and other actions, while critics say the practice raises questions about who “called the shots” in his final months [3] [4].
1. What investigators are looking at: “autopen” use, clemency and who authorized actions
Republican-led reviews have centered on documents signed at the end of Biden’s presidency — especially clemency and pardon paperwork — and whether those documents were signed by autopen without sufficient evidence that Biden personally approved them; the New York Times reporting and Biden’s own statements are central to that dispute [3] [4]. President Trump’s June 2025 memorandum directed the White House counsel, working with the attorney general, to investigate whether “certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden’s mental state” and whether autopen-signed documents were used to “unconstitutionally exercise” presidential authority [1] [5].
2. Who’s running the congressional work: Oversight Committee actions and the GOP report
House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer led an inquiry into Biden’s mental fitness and autopen use, convening depositions and interviews with former aides and releasing a staff report that characterizes the period as an “Autopen Presidency” and urges further review — including letters, subpoenas and a public GOP report asking DOJ to consider investigations into Biden-era executive actions [6] [7] [2]. Comer’s office and allied Republican outlets argue the evidence shows aides exercised authority as Biden’s condition allegedly deteriorated [7] [6].
3. Biden’s response and journalistic accounts: he says he authorized the autopen
Former President Biden has insisted he authorized the autopen for a range of measures near the end of his term, including many clemency actions; reporting in The New York Times and coverage in Axios and other outlets relay Biden’s defense that he made those decisions even when his signature was automated [3] [4]. Major news outlets note that the National Archives turned over tens of thousands of White House emails as part of reviews that could shed light on who directed clemency and autopen use [3].
4. Legal and historical context: autopen is longstanding but the legal questions are unsettled
News reporting and explainers emphasize that autopens are not new — many presidents have used them for routine tasks — but political opponents claim their use creates legal and constitutional questions when tied to major actions like pardons or executive orders [8] [9]. News outlets note that claims seeking to void pardons on the basis of autopen use have been raised but described by some reporting as lacking clear legal precedent and, in some coverage, as “without evidence” until further review [8] [9].
5. Disputes and partisan framing: dueling reports and accusations of a “sham” probe
The Oversight Committee released competing narratives: a GOP staff report calling actions “illegitimate” and urging DOJ consideration of undoing Biden executive actions, and Democratic members calling the investigation a “sham.” Reporting in The Washington Post and Politico documents these dueling conclusions and shows Republicans urging further DOJ action while Democrats dispute the findings and motives [10] [2]. Comer’s public messaging frames the effort as exposing a “cover-up” of Biden’s decline [7].
6. What’s been referred for criminal or DOJ review — and what’s still open
The Republican House majority recommended that DOJ review executive actions and consider probe-worthy matters; separately, the Trump White House counsel was tasked to look into alleged conspiracies to deceive the public and autopen-directed signatures [2] [1]. The available sources show calls for DOJ review and executive memoranda ordering internal investigations, but do not provide a definitive account that a distinct, independent criminal indictment or completed DOJ prosecution related specifically to autopen use had occurred as of the cited reporting [2] [1]. If you are asking about an ongoing criminal prosecution or DOJ charging decisions, available sources do not mention an explicit, concluded criminal case in the public record on that specific autopen question [2] [1].
7. How to read these developments: politics, precedent and evidentiary thresholds
These inquiries sit at the intersection of long-standing White House operational practice, partisan politics, and potential legal consequences. Republicans argue autopen use amid questions about Biden’s health undermines legitimacy; Democrats and some journalists stress autopen use has historical precedent and warn that claims to void past presidential actions lack straightforward legal footing [6] [8]. The ultimate outcome will depend on what documentary evidence (emails, contemporaneous approvals, testimony) DOJ or independent investigators find and how courts interpret any legal challenges — and that evidentiary record is the key disputed fact in current reporting [3] [2].
Limitations: reporting is drawn from the provided set of articles and committee releases; available sources do not mention a final DOJ indictment or court ruling reversing specific Biden actions as of the cited pieces [2] [1].