The House Oversight Committee has released a damning (but hardly surprising, given what we already knew) report concluding that senior aides to President Joe Biden exercised his Presidential powers without his knowledge or consent, including his signing of executive actions and deciding and directing national policy.
The 90-page report is titled “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House.” (Might have tried to be a bit more restrained there, partisan-wise…) The report documents how Biden’s inner circle ran the government when he could not, while concealing his cognitive deterioration, strictly staging his appearances and controlling Biden’s decision-making. Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) said the findings raise “constitutional and criminal concerns” about the validity of executive actions taken between 2021 and the end of his term in office.
Yes, that seems like a fair assessment. As is usual in such matters, the Democrats on the committee released the obligatory “this is a partisan witch hunt” rebuttal, but the evidence throughout the report seems beyond reasonable dispute. The evidence does not prove Biden’s staff acted without authority, the Democrats say, because it is always nearly impossible to prove a negative. Right. That’s the best they have?
To save us both time, read the Washington Examiner’s extensive report on the report, here. My considered, measured analysis: Holy crap!
So the question is, “Now what?” At the bare minimum, the Department of Justice must revise its guidance on the use of the autopen on Presidential Executive Orders. A 2005 DOJ memo held that Presidents can use the autopen for official documents, but it wasn’t until President Barack Obama used it to sign legislation in 2011 while he was abroad that the gates were opened for the Biden team’s abuse.
A lot needs to happen in light of this confirmation of our worst fears. I’ll post about that in a follow-up, but reader suggestions are welcome.
Ethics Alarms 
Democratic Narrative:
4(a). And he’s tearing down the people’s house!
(Did anyone else notice “the people’s house” appeared in every Democrats’ comments on the Sunday morning talk shows last weekend regardless of what they were asked about? The most pathetic example of talking point-palooza on record.)
Imho, the most pathetic talking point-palooza is still whatever this thing was: https://x.com/InsiderWire/status/1896965208830308778
As I said in 2020: “Weekend at Bernie’s.”
Historical fiction fantasy challenge: For each of the previous presidents, what would each’s reaction be to the prior administration using the autopen like during the Biden administration.
Trump #1: “I sign so much stuff. You wouldn’t believe how many papers I sign every day. It must be a gazillion jillion papers. No one signs as much as I do. But I use the best pen available and it’s 100% my signature. Obama’s robot signature is as fake as his birth certificate!”
Obama: “The truth is that we need to be assured that our elected officials are being as transparent as possible. That’s impossible when we can’t trust that they are signing documents personally instead of delegating that responsibility to others. The outsourcing of signatures via autopen is precisely the kind of mishandling we saw during George W. Bush’s administrations. That type of reckless loyalty to unreliable underlings hindered the response to Katrina. Undeserved African-American communities suffer when a President can’t take the time to sign his own documents.”
George W. Bush: “We can’t be surprised when the President misuses the Oval Office as his own personal rumpus room that he would also finesstrate (deliberate on my part – Bushism for finesse) his way out of signing all of those papers…”
Bill Clinton: “It depends on what you mean by pen.”
Sorry, this was supposed to be a reply to OhWhatFunItIs above.
“Undeserved African-American communities suffer when a President can’t take the time to sign his own documents.”
*cough. I meant “underserved”
Batting a thousand today…
That’s pretty good!
Thanks. Getting the tone of an Obama lecture was hard.
I think the simple answer to “Now, what?” is to recognize that a long list of Presidential actions were, in fact, not actually taken.
An accounting of which ones can be confirmed were taken personally by President Biden, which cannot be determined with certainty, and which were definitely taken by other individuals needs to be made (and all due diligence should be done to minimize the size of the second category).
The actions in the 3rd category need to be reversed immediately and retroactively. After that’s done, we consider what to do about those who “acted on behalf of the President” without his knowledge.
–Dwayne
To me this intersects with the aging post. Obviously, people differ in their aging process. What does not differ is that we all experience aging.
The turning point of rapid decline might be in our 70s, or (as was true for my mother) might be quite a bit older (she turned the corner at 90, during the pandemic lockdowns). It was startling to her children just how dramatically weaker, more confused, and less capable she was when contrasting age 89 and 91.
All of us will reach this inflection point if we live long enough… and the decline can be very rapid when that happens.
Along with minimum age for president I think we need a maximum age at election. Apparently (brief search, no extensive fact checking on this) many states in the U.S. have set mandatory retirement ages for judges, typically ranging from 70 to 75 years old. In 2021 70% of Fortune 500 companies had mandatory retirement age policies, with popular age limits being 72 and 75.
Also relevant: A study supported by National Institutes of Health estimated that about 24 percent of Americans in their 80s have dementia, ranging from mild to severe, including about 18 percent who have Alzheimer’s disease.
If we picked 75 as the age limit at election, that would in practice mean someone hoping for two terms would need to be elected at age 71.
That seems reasonable. What do others think. In favor of an age limit? If so, what age?
Holly, I am on record as as agreeing with such limits for judges, for elected officials. What’s the magic number? Pick one. But it’s no more than 75.
Would this require a constitutional amendment? Would we also need an amendment to set an age limit for Reps and Senators? or could they pass a law themselves? If so fingers crossed voters stop sending the 80+ back to congress (Democrats being the worst of course!) as they would no doubt oppose this….
Peter Attia would agree, perhaps. https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/10/27/ethics-musings-on-dr-attias-60-minutes-feature/
JM: “1. The doctor is irresponsible and lying. ”
How would you reconcile that statement with this statement?
JM: “But it’s no more than 75.”?
Is this a matter of precision or general trajectory?
It’s a matter of paying attention to the odds, along with the fact that no individual can be trusted to be objective about their own capabilities. Which has nothing to do with the assertion that 75 is a “cliff” that every human being faces. As I think I made clear, I don’t care what the number is, as long as there’s a number. My assumption is that ten years after the expected retirement age is a fair point to say, “Do something else other than being judge or an elected official, in an abundance of caution. Nobody says you can’t cure cancer now (except Dr. Attia…) You like 76 better? Great: it’s 76. 77? I can accept that. But by the time you get to 90, you’re being irresponsible. (Or is it 89?)
There’s irresponsible and then there is Strom Thurmond.
I’m not sure he’s even the worst. Texas Rep. Kay Granger was in a nursing home for 6 months while missing votes with no one arranging for a special election or nominating a replacement. Wasn’t as old, but undeniably senile.