Senate Judiciary Hearing Probes ‘Auto‑Pen’ Use and Calls to Strengthen 25th Amendment Safeguards

The Senate Judiciary Committee examined whether White House staff used an electronic “auto‑pen” to affix President Joe Biden’s signature to orders, clemencies and other documents without his explicit assent and discussed possible reforms to the Twenty‑fifth Amendment and White House recordkeeping.

Chairman Chuck Grassley opened the hearing by saying it would examine “competency, corruption, and cover up within the Biden administration,” and noted documents he has released alleging political “weaponization” of law enforcement. Ranking Member Dick Durbin said the committee has a duty to oversee the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and criticized the majority’s choice of hearing topic.

The committee heard testimony from three witnesses: John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor and research professor at the University of Virginia School of Law; Theo Wald, visiting fellow for law and technology policy at The Heritage Foundation; and Sean Spicer, former White House press secretary. Harrison told the panel that “Congress can require that when the president indicates that his signature is to be affixed to a document without manual signature, that decision by the president be documented and be made part of the public record.”

Wald told senators his organization’s review identified extensive use of an auto‑pen in the Biden White House. “By using the autopin, anyone can sign documents as the president himself,” he said in his testimony, adding that the White House began using an auto‑pen early in the administration and that use increased, including on clemency warrants. Wald testified that of “the 51 clemency warrants issued during the Biden presidency, over half, 32 in total, were signed with an auto‑pen,” and that some high‑profile clemencies were among those he reviewed.

Spicer criticized mainstream news coverage for failing to question the White House about the president’s fitness and said that regular, direct interaction between presidents and senior staff is necessary to assess a chief executive’s capacity. “The legacy media failed the American people,” he said, arguing that the press did not pursue lines of questioning about the president’s health that it had pursued in other administrations.

Senators from both parties asked whether documents and internal staff records—the “paper flow” of documents that reach the Oval Office—exist that would show when and whether the president personally assented to actions such as clemencies, executive orders or proclamations. Multiple senators, including Tom Cotton, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, urged the committee to seek or subpoena records from the White House Staff Secretary’s office. Wald and other witnesses said such records ordinarily exist and would help dispel or confirm concerns about delegation or unauthorized use of the auto‑pen.

The committee also debated remedies and policy reforms. Witnesses and several Republican senators urged clearer standards and reporting requirements so that presidential delegation of a signature or use of an auto‑pen would be documented and publicly accessible—examples included publication in the Federal Register or a comparable “paper flow” record. Harrison recommended that any statutory requirement be crafted to avoid undue burden on the White House’s operations but to ensure that presidential assent is traceable.

Lawmakers discussed whether the Twenty‑fifth Amendment’s Section 4—under which the vice president and a majority of cabinet officers may declare a president unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office—was adequate, and whether additional legal or statutory guardrails, reporting obligations or accountability measures for senior staff are needed. Wald and Harrison said Section 4 provides a process but that its functioning relies on officials willing to act; both recommended closer consideration of reforms to improve transparency and accountability.

Several senators raised criminal and ethical accountability for staff who might have knowingly concealed incapacity or used a signature device without authorization. Witnesses said potential criminal questions could be referred to prosecutors; they also emphasized legislative reforms to document presidential decisions prospectively, rather than relying on after‑the‑fact prosecutions.

The hearing included factual claims made by members during opening statements and questioning, including assertions about the number of reports concerning unaccompanied children and trafficking, and about auto‑pen use across specific years. Witnesses did not establish criminal findings; they urged document production and record reviews to resolve open questions. The chairman announced that written questions for the witnesses may be submitted for the record until June 26 at 5 p.m.

The hearing concluded without a committee vote or formal subpoena. Senators signaled multiple possible next steps: seeking Staff Secretary records, pursuing subpoenas if documents are not produced voluntarily, and exploring legislative proposals to require documented presidential assent when a signature is affixed by a device or staff action.

Ending note: witnesses and committee staff will provide further materials for the record; senators on both sides described potential statutory proposals to increase transparency of presidential acts and to clarify 25th Amendment procedures.