BOMBSHELL: Witness Testifies That Biden May Not Have Personally Approved Key Decisions

BOMBSHELL:  In a dramatic testimony before a Senate oversight committee, a witness representing the Oversight Project raised serious constitutional concerns over the Biden administration’s use of an auto pen to execute official documents—raising doubts about whether President Joe Biden personally approved some of the most consequential actions of his presidency. The testimony points to growing fears that the president’s declining mental capacity may have led to unauthorized delegations of executive power, potentially undermining the core principles of the U.S. Constitution.

The Heart of the Matter: The Auto Pen and Executive Authority

The U.S. Constitution, under Article II, vests the executive power of the nation solely in the President. This includes the power to sign executive orders, grant pardons, and approve legislation. Traditionally, these actions require the president’s personal involvement, authenticated by his signature—a safeguard intended to protect the democratic legitimacy of executive power.

But according to the Oversight Project’s findings, the Biden White House has routinely bypassed this safeguard by using an auto pen—a mechanical device that replicates the president’s signature. While the use of an auto pen isn’t new in presidential history, its frequency and application under Biden’s tenure raise new constitutional and legal concerns.

The witness, a board member of the Oversight Project, revealed that the Biden administration began using the auto pen as early as the fifth day of his presidency. Since then, the device has been used to sign clemency warrants, presidential proclamations, and executive orders—sometimes even on days when Biden was present in Washington and presumably capable of signing them himself.

Auto-Penned Pardons and the National Security Risk

Perhaps most concerning are the pardons and commutations allegedly executed without direct evidence of Biden’s personal approval. Of the 51 clemency warrants issued during his presidency, 32 were reportedly signed via auto pen. These include high-stakes and controversial acts such as preemptive pardons for figures including Dr. Anthony Fauci, members of the Biden family, and General Mark Milley. Some of these actions were taken during the final days of Biden’s presidency, a period during which questions about his mental fitness grew louder.

What’s more troubling is the absence of public records or media coverage showing President Biden personally speaking about or taking ownership of these decisions. In many cases, he was physically in Washington, D.C., when the documents were signed—yet still deferred to a mechanical signature.

Implications and Constitutional Questions

The Oversight Project argues that this practice raises significant constitutional, legal, and practical concerns. Once a signature is digitized and programmed into an auto pen, it can be deployed by virtually anyone with access—effectively allowing non-elected individuals to act as the president. While the witness clarified that the auto pen itself is “just technology,” the real issue lies in whether it was used to conceal the president’s cognitive decline or to facilitate executive overreach by unelected aides.

The 25th Amendment of the Constitution outlines procedures for handling presidential incapacitation. However, the witness charged that the Biden administration sidestepped these protocols, allowing staff to expand executive powers in ways that may not have reflected the president’s will—or his legal ability to consent.

Calls for Investigation

The witness ended the testimony with a clear call to action. He urged Congress and the American public to demand answers: Did President Biden personally approve all the major decisions made during his term? Was the auto pen used to bypass constitutional requirements? And most importantly, was the nation’s security compromised in the process?

While no conclusive evidence was presented showing that Biden lacked the capacity to govern or that he was unaware of these decisions, the troubling pattern outlined by the Oversight Project demands a deeper investigation.

In an era where trust in government institutions continues to waver, this latest revelation adds fuel to the fire. The American people—and the Constitution—deserve clear answers.