Congress asks the Department of Justice to investigate alleged Biden-era misuse of the autopen, even as questions mount about the department’s own political investigations.
By High Country Advocate Staff
October 31 2025 — Washington, D.C.
A New Oversight Showdown
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has released a 100-page report titled “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House.”
The report alleges that aides to former President Joe Biden exercised presidential authority without his authorization and concealed his declining health.
Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to have the Department of Justice (DOJ) review every executive action signed by autopen and to examine the conduct of Biden’s longtime physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor.
That request places the DOJ in an unusual position: the same department now being asked to investigate the Biden administration once directed the “Arctic Frost” operation, which subpoenaed records from more than 400 Republicans—including sitting senators—under former Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Congress is, in effect, demanding accountability from the very agency that may itself require oversight.
Inside the Autopen Report
The Oversight Committee says it conducted fourteen depositions totaling forty-seven hours of testimony.
Its findings include:
- Controlled appearances: Senior staff allegedly scripted Biden’s schedule and restricted unscripted public events to hide cognitive decline.
- Political interference in medical care: Testimony from Jeff Zients and Anita Dunn indicated political advisers rejected calls for cognitive testing to protect reelection prospects.
- Improper use of autopen: Staff allegedly executed pardons and commutations with mechanical signatures lacking clear documentation of presidential authorization.
- Conflict of interest: Dr. O’Connor’s financial and personal ties to the Biden family were said to compromise his medical independence.
Comer referred O’Connor to the D.C. Board of Medicine and requested a criminal review by the DOJ of aides who invoked the Fifth Amendment during questioning.
“Executive actions performed by Biden White House staff and signed by autopen are null and void,” Comer said in the release. “Our report provides transparency. Now there must be accountability.”
What the DOJ’s Role Means
The Department of Justice, however, is the only body empowered to prosecute potential crimes within the Executive Branch—and it is the same institution whose previous leadership directed Arctic Frost.
That operation, revealed through the Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry this summer, involved 197 subpoenas and requests for metadata from telecommunications providers tied to more than 160 Republican lawmakers and staff.
Verizon complied with several requests; AT&T refused others.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) described the effort as “nothing short of a political dragnet.”
With the change in administration, Attorney General Bondi inherited an agency still under scrutiny for those investigations.
Now she must decide whether to open a new case examining Biden-era actions that occurred inside that same department.
Can the DOJ Investigate Itself?
Legally, yes — but practically, rarely.
The department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) can conduct internal inquiries into DOJ conduct, yet it reports to the same leadership structure.
While the Attorney General can appoint an independent special counsel, such appointments are discretionary and politically fraught.
Historically, DOJ self-investigations seldom lead to prosecutions of senior officials.
During Operation Fast and Furious (2012), internal reviews confirmed failures but yielded no criminal charges.
In 2019, the Inspector General’s report on FISA warrant abuses prompted disciplinary recommendations, not indictments.
If Bondi authorizes a probe of autopen usage, it would likely begin as a preliminary assessment — a low-visibility review of Oversight’s evidence — to determine whether a full criminal inquiry is warranted.
Past experience suggests such assessments can take months and often end quietly.
The Senate’s Parallel Oversight Power
If the DOJ declines to act, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary is the only congressional body with authority to launch an independent investigation into the department’s operations.
That authority stems from Article I of the Constitution and Senate Rule XXV, which gives the committee jurisdiction over “the Department of Justice; the FBI; criminal law generally; and judicial proceedings.”
The Judiciary Committee can:
- Subpoena documents and witnesses.
- Hold public or closed-door hearings.
- Request internal reports from the DOJ Inspector General.
- Recommend legislative or disciplinary actions.
What it cannot do is prosecute; its power ends at exposure and recommendation.
Precedents such as the 1920s Teapot Dome probe, the 1973 Watergate hearings, and the 2012 Fast and Furious inquiry show that Judiciary investigations can reshape public perception and force resignations—even without criminal charges.
A Constitutional Tension
The Oversight Committee’s referral to the DOJ and the Senate’s potential follow-up through Judiciary highlight a persistent tension between branches of government:
Congress can reveal, but only the Executive can enforce.
When the accused and the enforcer share institutional DNA, accountability becomes uncertain.
That’s the core dilemma of the Autopen controversy: can any agency honestly investigate its own past conduct?
Political Reactions
Republicans call the report a turning point for government transparency.
Democrats dismiss it as political theater.
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) argued that the committee’s witness list and document requests were “designed for headlines, not evidence.”
Legal experts note that the autopen device itself is not inherently illicit.
Congress authorized its use through the Presidential Signatures Act of 2011 during the Obama administration, and presidents from both parties have used it for routine orders.
The legal question, therefore, is whether aides used the device without explicit direction from the President—something that would require direct evidence of intent or forgery.
“Using an autopen is lawful; using it without authorization is not,” said Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional scholar at the University of Texas School of Law. “The evidentiary bar is extremely high.”
Historical Pattern: Oversight Without Enforcement
From Iran-Contra to Benghazi, Congress has produced dozens of criminal referrals with few resulting prosecutions.
The Department of Justice traditionally treats such referrals as informational rather than binding.
It must re-gather admissible evidence under criminal-procedure rules—meaning committee transcripts alone rarely suffice.
For example:
- The House’s 2012 contempt citation against Attorney General Eric Holder was never prosecuted.
- In 2019, DOJ declined to pursue contempt charges against Attorney General William Barr after the Mueller report dispute.
- In 2023, no charges followed Republican referrals over DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
This history fuels skepticism that the DOJ will act decisively on the Autopen findings, regardless of political control.
Prosecutors Under the Microscope
While the DOJ now faces calls to investigate its own Biden-era conduct, several prosecutors who previously pursued President Trump or his associates are themselves under scrutiny—at both the federal and state levels.
Jack Smith — Federal Special Counsel
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who led the Arctic Frost operation and the two federal indictments of Trump, remains under review following Senate Judiciary disclosures that his office subpoenaed data from more than 400 Republican officials and organizations.
Attorney General Bondi has ordered an internal examination of whether Smith’s investigative reach or methods violated Justice Department policy.
He has been placed on administrative leave pending that inquiry.
Fani Willis — Fulton County (Ga.) District Attorney
In Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis, who charged Trump and multiple co-defendants under the state’s racketeering statute, is facing overlapping state and congressional investigations.
Judge Scott McAfee ruled that her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade created an “appearance of impropriety.”
Wade resigned, but the Georgia Senate Oversight Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and the state bar continue to examine her office’s spending and conduct.
Letitia James — New York State Attorney General
In New York, Attorney General Letitia James—whose office won a civil-fraud judgment against Trump’s companies in 2024—is under review by the state’s Legislative Ethics Commission after questions surfaced about campaign fundraising tied to that case.
The inquiry is state-level, not federal.
James denies wrongdoing, and her office is defending the civil verdict on appeal while cooperating with legislative auditors.
Together, Smith, Willis, and James illustrate how prosecutors once viewed as symbols of accountability are now facing accountability tests of their own.
Their circumstances reinforce the central theme behind the Oversight Committee’s Autopen Presidency report: if the system can investigate presidents but not itself, where does equal justice begin and end?
Possible Outcomes
- DOJ Internal Review: Bondi could order a confidential assessment of the Autopen evidence, with limited public disclosure.
- Inspector General Investigation: The DOJ OIG could open a formal inquiry into prior department actions and report findings to Congress.
- Special Counsel Appointment: Bondi could designate an independent prosecutor to separate the matter from existing DOJ chains of command.
- Senate Oversight Hearings: Judiciary could summon both Oversight members and DOJ officials for testimony under oath.
Any of these would mark movement, but none guarantee prosecutions or policy change.
What’s at Stake
If the DOJ again declines to act, critics argue it will confirm a perception that senior federal officials remain effectively above the law, insulated by institutional loyalty and partisan restraint.
If the department proceeds, it risks accusations of retribution.
Either outcome could reshape the balance between congressional oversight and executive autonomy.
Conclusion
The House Oversight Committee’s Autopen report and the Senate’s Arctic Frost disclosures converge on a single, uneasy question:
Can the Department of Justice credibly investigate its own past conduct?
The answer will depend less on new legislation than on political will—and on whether the Senate Judiciary Committee chooses to test its authority over the nation’s most powerful law-enforcement agency.
For now, Congress has spoken, the DOJ has been put on notice, and the public waits to see whether the promise that “no one is above the law” still has meaning in Washington.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 