BREAKING: Staffers operating President Biden’s autopen were allegedly taking payoffs in exchange for pardons, per Rep. Tim Burchett.
In a stunning development that is raising serious concerns about the integrity of the presidential pardon process, Representative Tim Burchett (R-TN) has alleged that staffers responsible for operating President Joe Biden’s autopen were accepting bribes in exchange for issuing presidential pardons. The claim, which remains unverified, has already sent ripples through Washington and ignited calls for a formal investigation.
According to Burchett, unnamed White House aides abused their access to the autopen—a mechanical device that allows documents to be signed with the president’s signature in his absence—to authorize clemency for individuals who provided them with financial incentives. The accusations, aired in an interview and amplified on social media, suggest a clandestine scheme in which convicted individuals or their representatives allegedly funneled money to these aides in return for official pardons or commutations.
“This is beyond corruption. If true, it means our highest institution of mercy and justice was turned into a pay-to-play racket,” Burchett stated. He went on to suggest that the Department of Justice must launch an independent probe, and that Congress should consider holding hearings to determine the extent of the alleged misconduct.
The White House has not yet issued a formal statement in response to the allegations. However, senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, strongly denied any wrongdoing and dismissed the claims as politically motivated. “The use of the autopen is tightly controlled, and no staffer has independent authority to grant pardons. All actions are vetted through multiple layers, including legal counsel,” one official said.
Experts are divided on the implications. Some constitutional scholars point out that, while the autopen has been used in limited and procedural circumstances—such as signing emergency bills or letters when the president is not physically present—its use in signing pardons is unprecedented and legally murky. “Even if the autopen was involved, the actual authority to pardon rests solely with the president,” said Professor James Delaney, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown University. “If someone manipulated that process, it’s not just fraud—it’s a potential constitutional crisis.”
Congressional Democrats have called the claims “outrageous and baseless,” accusing Burchett of using inflammatory rhetoric without offering concrete proof. Nonetheless, several Republican lawmakers are backing his call for an investigation, citing the need for transparency and accountability, especially during an election year.
At the center of the storm is the question of how presidential pardons are processed and whether safeguards are sufficient to prevent abuse. While the allegations remain unproven, they come at a time of heightened scrutiny over executive power and the ethical conduct of those within the president’s inner circle. As of now, no names of alleged recipients of fraudulent pardons have been released, and no indictments have been announced.
If substantiated, the allegations could lead to a major scandal involving criminal charges and a reevaluation of how presidential authority is executed and monitored. Until then, the public waits for further evidence and clarification as the story continues to unfold.
