A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) edits by Grok
Teaser
What happens when a robotic pen, presidential authority, and partisan agendas collide? This post breaks down the controversy around President Biden’s alleged use of an autopen, examining the legal facts, political firestorm, and why even simple answers often do more harm than good.
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
Let’s focus on the legal element first: what do we know about the truth in court regarding Biden’s alleged use of an autopen to sign official documents? And then I want to explore the political minefield around it—why simple answers like “Yes, I authorized it” seem to make things worse, not better. Wrap it up for me as a clash between law and political optics.
Beth’s Initial Response
Let’s start with the legal truth.
The Autopen and Presidential Authority
The autopen is a mechanical device that replicates a signature using a digital recording of a person’s handwriting. It has been used legally by several U.S. presidents, including Obama, who in 2011 used it to sign the Patriot Act while abroad. The Department of Justice (DOJ) ruled in 2005 that the autopen’s use is constitutional so long as the President explicitly authorizes its use.
That precedent was reaffirmed in a 2024 federal appeals court decision, which found that a lack of handwritten signature does not invalidate official presidential actions—such as pardons or executive orders—so long as authorization is proven.
So, if Biden said, either verbally or in writing, “Use the autopen to sign this executive order,” it’s legally valid. Even if a staffer operated the machine, the signature holds up in court.
The Legal Trap: Mental Capacity and Authorization
The political controversy hinges on Biden’s cognitive state. If Biden were mentally unfit to authorize the use of the autopen, or if someone forged his directive, it could invalidate the documents. But here’s the catch:
- The President is presumed competent until officially declared otherwise.
- The 25th Amendment is the only constitutional mechanism to remove powers from a sitting President for mental incapacity.
So unless that process is invoked, any authorization Biden gave—even if just verbal—remains legally binding.
In May 2025, Republican lawmakers, led by Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, intensified scrutiny, citing whistleblower testimony and alleging Biden may not have known about specific uses of the autopen for climate-related executive orders and controversial pardons.
Miles’ Follow-Up Question
Why hasn’t anyone just asked Biden the obvious question: “Did you authorize the use of the autopen for these documents?” It seems like such a simple path to clarity.
Beth’s Response
You’re absolutely right—on the surface, it should be a simple question: “Mr. President, did you authorize the use of the autopen for these documents?” But in Washington, even simple things become political minefields. Here’s why that seemingly obvious question may not have been asked directly—or answered publicly.
1. Shield of Office & Post-Presidency Protocol
Biden is now a former president, and traditionally, ex-presidents are treated with deference—not subpoenaed lightly and certainly not interrogated publicly without compelling evidence. Directly asking him would require:
- Going through formal legal channels or public appearances.
- Risking political fallout for appearing to “harass” an aging ex-president.
- Breaking precedent that protects former presidents from direct legal pressure without extraordinary cause.
2. Legal Strategy: Build the Case First
The House Oversight Committee appears to be following a bottom-up strategy:
- They’re gathering evidence from aides, doctors, and staffers first.
- Comer issued testimony requests with a May 29, 2025, deadline. Four out of five aides reportedly responded, but compliance remains under review.
- If they build enough circumstantial evidence that suggests Biden didn’t or couldn’t authorize the autopen, then they might attempt to question him directly.
So they’re likely avoiding an early direct confrontation that could neutralize their inquiry.
3. Cognitive Decline Allegations Complicate Direct Answers
One of the key Republican claims is that Biden may not have been mentally competent during portions of his presidency. If that narrative is central to their argument, then:
- Asking Biden now—after he’s left office—might be seen as irrelevant or unreliable by the investigators, especially if they believe he isn’t capable of recalling or understanding what occurred.
- It creates a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. If he says “yes, I authorized it,” they’ll question his memory. If he says “I don’t recall,” they’ll use that as proof of decline.
These claims gained momentum in late May after Trump alleged Biden’s aides used the autopen for immigration policy without Biden’s knowledge. Republican Rep. Tim Burchett also alleged, without proof, that staffers may have accepted payoffs for pardons—claims that remain unverified.
4. Political Optics and Delay Tactics
Asking Biden directly would force the issue into media saturation territory, but doing so too soon risks:
- Undermining the investigation before it’s fully weaponized politically.
- Giving Biden and his allies a chance to mount a coherent public defense early.
- Losing the narrative advantage of “we’re uncovering a cover-up.”
Sometimes investigations are drawn out not to get to the truth fast, but to control the headlines over time.
Bottom Line
Why haven’t they asked Biden directly? Because in Washington:
“A simple question with a simple answer” often loses value when narrative control, political timing, and legal posturing are more important than clarity.
If this were truly about facts, Biden would’ve been asked months ago. But in this case, delay benefits the accusers, and ambiguity benefits the political theater.
Miles’ Reflection
Exactly! That’s what I keep coming back to. If this is all about authorization, why hasn’t Biden just said it plainly, or why hasn’t Congress just asked him directly? It feels like a trap either way—where no matter what he says, it becomes political fuel. I’m not sure the truth would matter at this point, which is sad.
Beth’s Summary
This controversy reveals a fundamental tension between legal truth and political theater. Legally, the use of an autopen is valid if authorized, and no court has overturned any Biden-era action as of June 1, 2025. Politically, however, the question of authorization is being weaponized. Even a simple “yes” could become fuel for a deeper narrative. In today’s landscape, the real trap lies not in the signature—but in how the truth is received and reframed.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment