Recent revelations surrounding Neera Tanden’s claims about President Biden’s autopen usage for executive actions have sparked significant debate, raising critical questions about the legal validity and operational integrity of White House decision-making during his tenure.

Tanden, in her closed-door deposition, asserted that every instance of autopen use for executive actions received direct, personal authorization from President Biden, often accompanied by his signature and even detailed notes. This assertion aims to counter criticisms regarding the delegation of presidential authority.

However, the logical inconsistencies within her statement — specifically, why the President would sign an authorization for an autopen if he could simply sign the document himself — prompt deep skepticism. Such a process appears unnecessarily convoluted and raises immediate concerns about its genuine purpose.

This scenario directly echoes previous discussions concerning the legal ramifications of a president’s potential incapacitation, particularly in the context of actions requiring a direct presidential signature, such as pardons. The debate centers on whether actions executed via autopen truly carry the same legal weight as a handwritten signature, drawing attention to the broader scope of executive actions and their legal foundations.

Key presidential powers, including the pardon power, veto authority, and the right to make high-level appointments, are generally considered non-delegable. This means only the President can execute them, which logically extends to requiring their physical signature, not a mechanical reproduction, for utmost legal certainty. This underscores the critical nature of verifying presidential authority for all such executive actions.

Further complicating matters, prior reports, including those from the New York Times, have suggested that some documents signed by autopen, such as group pardons, lacked the President’s direct consent on the final drafted lists. This discrepancy casts a shadow on the claim of full presidential oversight for every autopen-authorized action, adding another layer to the ongoing legal scrutiny.

Therefore, despite Tanden’s insistence on authorized autopen use, the fundamental question remains: did President Biden truly engage with and approve the final content of every document executed in this manner? The broader implications for the legitimacy of certain executive actions warrant continued scrutiny and legal clarification, prompting a reevaluation of White House policy regarding such sensitive matters.