Biden Says He Made the Clemency Decisions That Were Recorded With Autopen

Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is vigorously pushing back against Republican assertions that he may not have personally authorized a series of high-profile clemency decisions made at the conclusion of his presidency. These claims, circulating widely in political circles and media outlets, also question his cognitive fitness during his time in office.

In a phone interview with The New York Times, Mr. Biden firmly stated that every pardon and commutation issued at the end of his presidency had been approved by him directly. He denounced former President Donald Trump and other Republicans who suggested otherwise, labeling them as “liars.” According to Biden, the use of an autopen to affix his signature to the clemency documents was solely a logistical decision due to the high volume of approvals.

“I made each and every decision myself,” he emphasized, explaining that the autopen was employed only because “we were talking about a very large number of people.”

This marked the first time Mr. Biden addressed ongoing inquiries launched by the Trump-led White House, the Department of Justice, and congressional committees into both the clemency actions during his final weeks in office and broader concerns regarding his mental capacity.

In response to these investigations, Republican members of Congress have requested sworn testimony from former Biden administration officials. Many of those officials have retained legal counsel, reportedly on advice that they avoid public comment to prevent any inconsistencies that could lead to perjury charges—particularly under a Justice Department now overseen by political opponents.

One such official is Mr. Biden’s former White House physician, who previously confirmed the former president’s fitness for office. The doctor recently invoked the Fifth Amendment, citing the risk of legal jeopardy under current DOJ scrutiny. Unlike his former aides, however, Mr. Biden, as a former president, has broader constitutional protections and cannot be easily compelled to testify before Congress.

A significant portion of the debate now centers on a collection of emails housed at the National Archives. These correspondences, numbering in the tens of thousands, span from November 2024 through Inauguration Day on January 20, 2025, and include keywords such as “pardon,” “clemency,” and “commutation.” The messages were handed over as part of the Trump administration’s investigation into the nature and authenticity of Biden’s clemency decisions.

The New York Times has reviewed several dozen of these communications. They detail the process through which clemency decisions were made and later formalized via autopen. While the entire email cache remains unreleased, those that have been analyzed show a clear structure: Mr. Biden made verbal decisions during formal meetings, and his staff then documented and executed them accordingly.

One critical figure in this process was White House Staff Secretary Stefanie Feldman. Her responsibility included managing the autopen and ensuring that no clemency warrant was signed without documented evidence of Mr. Biden’s verbal authorization. Aides were required to provide written summaries of each decision-making meeting—referred to internally as “blurbs.” These summaries were then verified and circulated among senior staff, including White House Counsel Ed Siskel and Chief of Staff Jeffrey D. Zients.

When asked about specific evidence supporting the claim that Mr. Biden was not directly involved, Harrison Fields, a spokesperson for the Trump White House, replied that Biden was simply “not to be trusted” and declared, “The truth will come out about who was, in fact, running the country.”

Mr. Biden had already released a written statement calling Republican accusations “ridiculous and false,” but his latest comments to The Times reflect a more aggressive posture as he and his team try to counter mounting political pressure from Mr. Trump and his allies in Congress.

While Mr. Trump recently admitted that he lacked hard evidence showing Biden was unaware of the clemency grants, he pointed to Biden’s shaky debate performance in June 2024 as proof of cognitive decline. That debate performance, in which Biden struggled to articulate coherent responses, was followed shortly by his decision to exit the 2024 re-election race.

“I saw the mind in action,” Trump said. “And it was clear to me he didn’t know what was going on.”

It’s important to note that age-related cognitive decline exists on a spectrum. Many older adults may have occasional memory lapses or moments of confusion, but remain fully capable of making thoughtful decisions. The Republicans, however, have painted an extreme picture, suggesting that Biden was so mentally impaired that his aides acted on his behalf without his knowledge.

At the core of the controversy is Biden’s sweeping set of clemency actions. During his final days in office, he commuted the sentences of nearly 4,000 federal prisoners and granted pre-emptive pardons to individuals he believed could become targets of politically motivated investigations under the Trump administration.

According to Biden, the use of the autopen to formalize 25 clemency-related documents between December 2024 and January 2025 was a matter of efficiency. Several of these documents contained the names of large groups of individuals who were granted relief under broad policies—for example, nonviolent drug offenders who met certain reform criteria Biden had championed.

The most contentious clemency decisions, however, involve a final wave of pardons that included high-profile figures viewed by Trump as political enemies. These included General Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and members of the House committee that investigated the January 6th Capitol riot. Trump has claimed these pardons are invalid, alleging—without presenting any evidence—that Biden was unaware of them.

In the interview, Biden defended these decisions, saying he aimed to shield such individuals, including members of his own family, from what he saw as politically driven legal attacks.

“We all know how vindictive Trump can be,” Biden remarked. “I acted deliberately to protect these people.”

Internal White House emails reviewed by The Times support Biden’s account. In one dated October 30, 2024, White House Counsel Ed Siskel warned staff about an impending surge of clemency requests and outlined a clear procedural framework for evaluating them. “The president makes the final decision,” he wrote.

Over the next 90 days, Biden authorized four distinct clemency actions recorded via autopen. Three of these focused on groups, such as inmates on home confinement and federal prisoners convicted of low-level drug offenses. Another major move saw Biden commute the death sentences of 37 federal inmates to life without parole—excluding those convicted of terrorism or hate-motivated mass murders.

Biden also chose not to commute the sentences of three such inmates, explaining that their crimes had such societal impact that granting clemency would have been “a step too far.”

The fourth set of clemency actions, released on his final day in office, included the controversial pre-emptive pardons. Internal records show these decisions were finalized during two key meetings—on January 18 and 19—with senior aides including Siskel, Zients, Bruce Reed, Steve Ricchetti, Annie Tomasini, and Anthony Bernal.

At the January 19 meeting, Biden added pardons for members of his own family. The records also indicate that Biden changed his mind on certain individuals. For example, he initially intended to pardon Don Siegelman, a former Alabama governor previously convicted of corruption, but later reversed that decision. Biden explained that Siegelman, who was no longer incarcerated, did not require a pardon and that many others were more in need.

Each clemency action was backed by supporting documentation reviewed by aides and approved by Biden. For mass clemency efforts, Biden approved general eligibility criteria rather than individual names. His staff then refined the final list, sometimes adjusting it based on updated information from the Bureau of Prisons.

These adjustments were standard procedure, one former aide noted, and rather than ask Biden to repeatedly re-sign updated lists, they opted to submit the final versions for autopen authorization.

For high-profile cases, Biden maintained a more hands-on approach. He cited General Milley as a prime example, expressing concern that Trump would pursue legal retaliation.

“I had no doubt Trump would go after Mark without cause,” Biden said. “So yes, I made sure his name was on that list.”

Ultimately, Mr. Biden’s position remains clear: the decisions were his, and the process—though streamlined with technology and staff assistance—was fully under his direction. As political adversaries attempt to question his authority and competency, the former president appears ready to confront those challenges head-on.