There’s a reason Americans expect the president’s signature to mean something. When that pen touches paper, it isn’t just ink. It’s authority, responsibility, and the solemn weight of an oath sworn before God and country.

But what happens when the pen isn’t held by the president at all?

That’s the question House Oversight Chairman James Comer is putting squarely before the nation in his scathing new report: “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House.”

The Case Against Biden’s Use of the Autopen

Comer’s report claims that, during Joe Biden’s term, multiple official actions — including clemencies and executive orders — were signed by an autopen machine, sometimes without clear documentation that Biden had personally approved them.

Now, for those not familiar, an autopen is essentially a robotic arm that reproduces a signature. It’s legal in limited contexts — President Obama used one while traveling overseas — but it’s only legitimate if the president personally authorizes the signature.

Comer’s argument is that such authorization became murky or missing entirely in several Biden-era documents. The report goes further, alleging that Biden’s aides, knowing his cognitive decline was worsening, took advantage of that ambiguity. Some witnesses, according to the report, admitted that no one questioned whether Biden himself had approved certain actions. The committee takes that as evidence of a cover-up culture, an “anything to protect the boss” mentality.

The Bigger Issue: Who Was Actually Running the Country?

Let’s be blunt: if a president’s signature — the literal mark of executive authority — is applied without his personal involvement, that’s not a clerical error; that’s constitutional malpractice.

It strikes at the heart of Article II, which vests executive power in the President of the United States, not in his staff, family, or advisors. If aides or handlers made decisions and merely stamped them with a mechanical signature, the question becomes terrifyingly simple: who was actually running the government?

For conservatives who have warned for years that the Biden presidency was increasingly run “by committee” — by advisers, bureaucrats, and family — this report feels like grim vindication. It paints a picture not of malice, but of institutional drift, where the presidency became more like a management franchise than a man at the helm.

The Need for Evidence, Not Just Outrage

But here’s where sober judgment is needed.

The Oversight Committee’s report is filled with interviews, allegations, and suspicions, but so far, not iron-clad proof that actions were signed without Biden’s knowledge. Democrats on the committee are already saying Comer’s report is “a political stunt,” and independent outlets like AP note that the evidence is mostly circumstantial.

If we’re going to demand integrity from leaders, we must also demand integrity from investigations. That means rooting accusations in fact, not fury. The American people deserve to know whether the autopen was used lawfully or abused, but they also deserve an inquiry grounded in truth, not theater.

From a biblical standpoint, authority is sacred. Romans 13 reminds us that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” When authority is exercised deceitfully or carelessly, it’s not just a political failing; it’s a moral one.

But Scripture also warns against false witness and hasty judgment. Proverbs 18:13 says, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”

That’s why we must strike a careful balance: we must pursue truth relentlessly but not let our righteous anger turn into partisan vengeance. The truth, after all, doesn’t need spin. It only needs light.

What Happens Next

If the DOJ takes up Comer’s call for investigation, we’ll soon find out whether these claims have legal legs. If it turns out Biden’s team misused the autopen, that’s not just a technical violation. It’s a constitutional crisis. It would call into question the validity of pardons, executive orders, and possibly even federal regulations issued under those signatures.

If, however, the evidence shows that Biden did authorize each action, then Comer’s report, while politically explosive, will go down as a warning shot, a reminder that even the appearance of executive automation undermines public trust.

Either way, America wins when truth prevails.

The Bottom Line

This isn’t just about Joe Biden. It’s about the integrity of the presidency itself.

I believe in limited government, but that also means accountable government. No unelected staff, no robotic pen, no political machine should ever substitute for a living, breathing, accountable president.

So, yes, investigate the autopen. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If wrongdoing occurred, expose it. If not, restore confidence. Either outcome serves the Republic.

Because in the end, this isn’t about Biden, Comer, or party politics. It’s about that pen. That signature. That sacred moment when a president — not a machine — takes responsibility before God and the American people.

And that’s a line that no autopen should ever cross.