Poll Results

YES: 83% | NO: 17%

In this recent poll, we asked a simple but serious question:

“Do you believe Biden’s staff used an autopen without his knowledge?”

The use of an “autopen” — a device that replicates a person’s signature — is not new to Washington. However, growing concerns over President Biden’s cognitive health and delegation of duties have sparked renewed scrutiny over how presidential authority is exercised — and whether key decisions were being made without his direct involvement or awareness.

Why This Issue Matters

The President’s signature carries legal and symbolic weight. Whether it’s signing a bill into law, authorizing orders, or responding to foreign matters, the assumption is that such decisions are made by the President himself — with full awareness and intent.

If staff used a signature tool like an autopen on official documents without the President’s knowledge or approval, it raises constitutional, ethical, and political questions about executive authority and transparency.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – It Happened Without His Knowledge”

• Signs of Delegated Authority:
  Many point to growing reports that President Biden’s schedule was limited, and that aides were managing much of his official correspondence. The idea that staff may have signed documents “on his behalf” doesn’t seem far-fetched to those concerned about how insulated he became in the latter part of his presidency.
• Cognitive Health Concerns:
  As questions about mental sharpness increased, particularly after Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report cited Biden’s memory lapses, some believe staff may have taken over routine approvals to maintain continuity — possibly without full disclosure to the President.
• Lack of Transparency:
  Critics say the White House has not been fully forthcoming about when or how the autopen has been used. If key decisions were being formalized without the President’s awareness, it would signal a major breakdown in democratic process.
• Historical Precedent Doesn’t Excuse Misuse:
  While past presidents have used the autopen for routine matters, doing so without the President’s direct instruction — particularly for significant or time-sensitive decisions — could cross the line into misuse of executive authority.
• Trust in the Office Undermined:
  The idea that staff may have “signed” for the President without his involvement challenges public confidence in who is really in charge — and when.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – Biden Was Aware and Approved”

• Autopen Use is Legal and Documented:
  The autopen has been used by multiple presidents, including George W. Bush and Barack Obama, typically for routine matters when the President is unavailable to physically sign.
• Authorized Use Only:
  Supporters argue that autopen use is carefully coordinated and done with explicit presidential approval. There’s no concrete evidence that President Biden’s staff acted without his consent.
• Efficiency in Office:
  Given the volume of paperwork the executive office handles, delegating signature mechanics — especially on routine or ceremonial documents — is often a practical necessity.
• No Violation Proven:
  Without direct evidence that Biden was unaware of a particular signature or order, the claim remains speculative. Critics, they argue, are assuming facts not in evidence.
• Focus on Substance, Not Signature:
  What matters, some say, is whether the President stands behind the decision — not whether he personally penned the signature every time.

Conclusion

This poll suggests that a majority of respondents believe President Biden’s staff may have used an autopen without his direct knowledge — a view shaped by concerns about transparency, cognitive capacity, and executive accountability.

Whether or not this happened, the broader issue remains: Americans expect clarity and confidence in how major decisions are made — and by whom. Your feedback continues to shape that ongoing conversation.