Top Biden Aide Tells Congress She Authorized Autopen Use Without Knowing Who Gave Final OK
Asked by a reporter if there had been an effort to coverup Biden’s condition, Tanden replied, “Absolutely not.”
Neera Tanden, a former top aide to President Joe Biden, testified for more than four hours Tuesday before the House Oversight Committee as part of its investigation into the former president’s mental fitness and his staff’s use of the autopen. From 2021 to 2023, Tanden served first as a staff secretary and later as a senior advisor to Biden.
According to a source familiar with her testimony, Tanden told lawmakers she had been “authorized to direct autopen signatures but was unaware of who in the president’s inner circle was giving her final clearance,” Fox News reported. Tanden said that after her promotion to director of the Domestic Policy Council in May 2023, she no longer had oversight of the autopen’s use.
According to the source, she claimed that the Biden administration’s system of autopen approval “was inherited from previous administrations.”
Given that Biden’s autopen was used to sign pardons, correspondence, and other key documents, access to the device should have been a tightly monitored and carefully controlled affair. That Tanden admitted she was unaware of who had provided the final authorization is nothing short of astounding.
According to Fox:
But Tanden, who said she had limited interactions with Biden, described an approval process that left her in the dark about who specifically was giving final approval on the decisions to use the automatic signature tool, sources told Fox News.
Tanden testified that to get approval for the use of autopen signatures she would send decision memos to members of Biden’s inner circle. However, she added that she was not aware of what actions or approvals took place between the time she sent the decision memo and the time she received it back with the necessary approval.
When Tanden was asked whether she ever discussed Biden’s health or his fitness to serve as president during her time as a top aide, including during the period of the former president’s widely criticized debate performance last summer, Tanden said she did not. Lawmakers laid out a list of names of officials she could have potentially discussed it with, and Tanden said “no” to each name, according to a source familiar with her closed-door testimony.
Following her testimony, Tanden briefly spoke to reporters. She said, “I just spoke with the House Oversight Committee, Majority and Minority Council. I answered every question, was pleased to discuss my public service and it was a thorough process. And I’m glad I answered everyone’s questions.”
Asked by a reporter if there had been an effort to coverup Biden’s condition, Tanden replied, “Absolutely not.”
REPORTER: “Was there an effort to disguise President Biden’s condition?”
Former Biden official Neera Tanden after holding a closed-door hearing with the Oversight Committee: “Absolutely not.”
Then she literally runs away. Insane.pic.twitter.com/uogKGRaTMH
— Suburban Black Man 🇺🇸 (@niceblackdude) June 24, 2025
It’s worth noting that early on, Biden nominated Tanden to be the director of the Office of Management and Budget. When it became obvious that she would not receive enough votes for Senate confirmation even in a Democrat-controlled Senate, she withdrew her name from consideration.
According to NPR:
It had become increasingly clear that Tanden’s nomination was in trouble after multiple key senators said they wouldn’t support her, citing her tweets criticizing some members of Congress. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., was the most significant opponent.
Tanden was the first of five former Biden administration officials to appear before the Oversight Committee. Next up is Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s former White House physician, who was subpoenaed by the Republicans.
Three additional former Biden officials, including Anthony Bernal, a senior advisor to former First Lady Jill Biden, Annie Tomasini, Biden’s former deputy chief of staff, and Ashley Williams, Biden’s former deputy director of Oval Office operations, are scheduled to appear.
Fox reports that the Committee is also pursuing interviews with members of Biden’s inner circle, including Ron Klain, who served for two years as chief of staff, and Anita Dunn, who was once a close advisor.
Elizabeth writes commentary for The Washington Examiner and Legal Insurrection. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is a traitorous scandal.
Unelected useful idiots were running the autopen, and NOBODY seemed to care.
They would have just changed the signature if Harris were elected.
Why cover it up? It was plain to see. The question should be why did the D party and media adjunct gaslight the entire country into not believing their eyes?
it is reported that she ok’d
cookie monster to pardon ms-13
These hearings aren’t going to produce a smoking gun. No one is stupid enough to admit under oath they usurped the authority of the Executive. And even if they did, there’s nothing Congress could do about it. There’s an exceptionally small chance that someone with standing – like Congress – could sue to challenge the propriety of everything Biden signed (or didn’t sign) in office. But even then, the Judiciary is likely to say it’s not justiciable. Arguably the biggest White House scandal in US history and nothing is going to come of it.
Why cover it up. Nobody is going to be held accountable. Nobody ever holds democrats accountable for their illegal acts and actions. Nobody. So this is all just bread and circuses to delude the unwashed masses into thinking that republicans will actually do something. But they won’t. These “closed-door hearing” will conclude and then . . . the sounds of crickets will be deafening. And that will be it as we move on to the next Big Thing™ that republicans can use for another outrage fest. That is all.
agree
lefty pushing for another tea party to take back the country from the lefty scum
I wonder what would happen if President Trump declared that the pardons signed with the autopen are invalid, and then proceeded to indict someone who was retrospectively pardoned. No doubt this would go right to some district court, and suddenly this might become justiciable. Just a thought.
That case would certainly be justiciable, but not if Trump simply says an autosigned pardon is invalid. That’s obviously false, and would be laughed out of court in five seconds. Any lawyer who put his name to such an assertion would be risking sanctions.
To bring such a case, the prosecutor would have to assert that that specific pardon was not personally authorized by Biden. And to even get a judge to listen to the assertion, the prosecutor would need solid evidence. This woman’s testimony is useless for that; it’s not proof of anything at all. The prosecutor would have to find some evidence that on that specific day Biden had been out of it all day; or else he’d have to trace how the decision to issue that pardon was made, and who made it, and call that person to testify on whether they had consulted the president before ordering it signed, and how alert he was when they did so. Of course the person will say they did consult him, and his mind was crystal clear, he understood exactly who was being discussed and what they were convicted of, and said yes, I want to pardon him. (Calling Biden himself would be useless, because even if he has no memory of any of this it doesn’t prove anything.)
of course she runs another dem ANTI ISRAEL ( means anti western values..like america …hmmm) entity
and of course imho,,,no doubt has funding from anti israel anti american sources out of the middle east
imagine that!!!!
She authorized the use of it from an authorization from an unknown person? That makes no sense. How was this authorization transmitted? A piece of paper unsigned? A text or email from an unknown sender?
Nah. It’s all on her, The only way to use that auto pen is from an authorization from the President — therefore she knows exactly who authorized it .
No, she didn’t say anything like that. She said she would receive the order to sign whatever it was, on the president’s behalf, but she had no knowledge of who told that person to tell her. Was it the president himself? His private secretary? The chief of staff? For all she knew it could have been anyone in the president’s office, but she was authorized to sign on her boss’s orders.
The thing is there’s no indication in the post what she was signing with it.
There is nothing wrong with this procedure in the case of ordinary correspondence, etc. This is how all CEOs operate. The secretary who has access to the autopen isn’t in the inner circle, but gets instructions from those who are in it.
But an autopen can’t be used to sign contracts without the signor’s personal authorization and his physical presence. The signor must be in the room when the autopen is used for legal purposes such as signing a contract. The same would be true for signing a bill. It wouldn’t be true for a pardon or an order, so long as she is given to believe that the president did personally authorize it. But she would have to told that, and she says she wasn’t. But perhaps she wasn’t signing anything like that. A letter from the president congratulating someone on their 100th birthday, or commiserating on a loss, etc, doesn’t even need to be brought to the president’s attention.
There is no “do not know.” There is only “know” and “wasn’t authorized.”
When something is authorized, that’s known. If it’s not known to be authorized, you check for authorization. If you don’t find it, the act can’t be (officially and legally) taken. There are greater consequences in a State’s government for spending $100 without authorization than there is for what was done by the staff of Biden’s White House. At best, the staff didn’t care whether or not their acts were authorized. At worst, they knew they weren’t authorized and did the acts anyway. Again, in State government, authorization consists of a trail of emails and signatures on documents. If these things aren’t in evidence during an audit, then officially there was no authorization.
Don’t Shoot Me, I’m Only The AutoPen Player!
It’s Biden’s responsibility to control autopen use. If he’s not up to it, it’s his cabinet’s responsibility to say he’s not up to it and throw him out.
Are the cabinet members mandated reporters? Is anyone, in any administration a mandated reporter regarding the 25th amendment? Unless and until questioning the cognitive ability of the commander in chief requires reporting and testing to recognized legal standards, any question regarding competency has only ethical implications. The Speaker of the House discovered the President had no knowledge of an order given, yet, that did not require any action to be initiated. That should have required the President be tested to some legal standard.
As it sits right now, every instance the pen was used, the President has to be proven to be cognitively deficient. Without such proof, whatever was done, stays done.
There is no such thing as a “mandated reporter”. The 25th amendment is an option available to the vice president and cabinet, not a mandated procedure.
No, it didn’t, because it didn’t show anything about whether he had in fact signed it, or ordered it to be signed. Just because he didn’t remember it on that occasion doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
“It’s Biden’s responsibility to control autopen use.”
Do you have any idea how many Autopens he left behind in Afghanistan?
In a Leftist administration, as long as whoever transmitted the authorization is a member of the Politburo it is considered valid. Something to keep in mind for the future.
Subotai Bahadur
So she receives an unsigned directive, giving her permission to use the autopen and that’s good enough for her? No wonder she couldn’t’ get confirmed by the Senate.
If we’re talking only about ordinary correspondence and routine business, why wouldn’t it be good enough for her? It’s good enough in business.
But if we’re talking about documents with legal impact, such as pardons and orders, let alone actual bills, then that’s not enough.
Are we talking only ordinary correspondence and routine business?
Aren’t we talking bills into law, executive orders regarding administration of federal government, executive pardons and/or commutations of sentences of criminals (both those already convicted and those who may otherwise yet be)?
What does it matter?
Stolen elections have consequences.
So unless you’re willing to build a set of gallows Lincoln Conspirators style, you’re outrage is meaningless.
Blondie is finally doing something worthwhile
https://dailycaller.com/2025/06/25/trump-doj-sues-judges-on-entire-federal-district-court/
The first rule of systems is to protect the system.
“That Tanden admitted she was unaware of who had provided the final authorization is nothing short of astounding.”
No, it’s not. That’s straight out of the Plausible Deniability handbook, and to be expected. It’s D.C., Stauffer. Come on.
Astounding would’ve been after 4 hours of House Oversite Committee oVeRSiTe when Tanden feigned ignorance about final authorization the obvious follow-up question would’ve been asked: “Ok, Ms. Tanden. Then who signed your memo that came back to your desk to give you direct authorization? Let’s start with that person, then follow those bread crumbs to final authorization. Name a name.”
Hello? Is this thing on? No. That follow up question wasn’t asked because we’re governed by gaggle of feckless congress critters whose only concern is feathering their own nest while protecting the system.
It is long past time to round up the usual suspects, and indefinitely detain them ?someplace? so more persuasive methods of ‘oversite’ can be used to obtain answers.
In fairness to the House committee (can’t believe I’m doing this), usually when they have these in camera hearings, it’s not the House members asking the questions. Instead, it’s the professional investigators who work for them. They’re often former prosecutors. We don’t know exactly what questions were asked. But, it’s important to keep in mind that Trump has now waived Executive Privilege…BIDEN’s EP (just as Biden did to Trump several years ago, in very unusual move) Without that privilege waiver, Congress likely would never get their hands on the document you wish they asked her about. Now, they’ll probably get it, if they don’t have it already. If they’re doing their jobs – BIG if – they’re only asking her questions they already know the answers to…hoping to set up some kind of perjury trap for her.
Sergeant Schultz said it best, “I know nothing.”
So, who was in charge? It’s important!!
I wonder if an autopen signature was flat-rate, or on a case-by-case basis…
10% a la carte.
Not the American Plan. Not even the European Plan. The Ukranian Plan.
So let’s track all the folks who had access to the AutoPen. Let’s look for the authorizations, emails, chain of evidence, etc. Good.
Let’s also look at each instance of its use and ask: qui bono? And then look at the financial accounts of all those White House staffers.
I will suggest that for some of the documents for which AutoPen was used, money changed hands.
That is probably as close to an admission of guilt as you’re going to get.
Polygraph her. She’ll likely remember more. The FBI already does that as a matter of routine to their employees.
No matter how the pardons and etc. eventually plays out, it’s plain that a strictly regulated and transparent process needs to be established for use of the autopen. This isn’t a left or right issue, either. Which party the President hails from is irrelevant, there shouldn’t even be the POSSIBILITY of this kind of thing going on.
She also claimed that the Biden administration’s system of autopen approval “was inherited from previous administrations.”
So who knows how long this has been going on, and how many other administrations were also doing this.
I will be damned. JR actually made a rational, on-point comment. And the really frightening part is… he’s absolutely correct.
But as a political appointee, she would be much more likely to be familiar with the practice of administrations like Obama and Clinton, as opposed to Bush and Reagan.
The only previous president who used an autopen to sign a bill was 0bama, and although he was not physically present, which is a legal problem, there was no question that he did personally and consciously authorize it.
But there’s nothing to indicate that she was talking about bills, or even about pardons or orders. No one seems to have asked her what she was using the pen for. If she only used it for the same purposes that any busy executive has a secretary with an autopen, then it may very well have been the practice of many administrations to do the same, and that’s not a problem.