An explosive closed-door hearing on Capitol Hill has exposed what legal experts describe as one of the gravest constitutional challenges in modern U.S. history. Lawmakers were presented with hours of testimony suggesting that presidential power during the Biden administration may have been exercised, in part, by senior aides rather than the president himself — a revelation now sparking calls for criminal investigation and casting doubt over the validity of numerous executive actions.
At the center of the inquiry is former White House Domestic Policy Council head Neera Tanden, who appeared before the House Oversight Committee in a marathon session that stretched more than four hours. Tanden, who also served as staff secretary and senior adviser during the Biden presidency, acknowledged under oath that she managed the flow of official documentation to and from the Oval Office and had authorization to use autopen devices — mechanical instruments capable of replicating the president’s signature.
Historically, autopens have been used sparingly by presidents for ceremonial purposes or routine correspondence. However, Tanden testified that from October 2021 through May 2023, they were employed to sign high-level policy directives and even executive orders. This revelation — suggesting the president may not have personally signed a number of legally binding documents — represents a dramatic departure from long-established executive practice. The period in question aligns with major Biden-era policies on climate, immigration, and the economy, prompting constitutional scholars to question whether those directives were legitimately executed under presidential authority.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer characterized the findings as central to determining “who was calling the shots” during Biden’s later years in office. Investigators are examining whether the use of automated signatures was meant to obscure concerns over the president’s cognitive health, or whether senior officials, and potentially family members, exercised power in his name.
Former President Joe Biden forcefully rejected those claims, stating, “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.” He accused opponents of using the controversy as a distraction from their own policy failures.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has demanded a criminal investigation, calling the alleged conduct “a conspiracy to conceal presidential incapacity.” In a formal memo, he argued that if aides used Biden’s mechanical signature to authorize government actions, the act would represent “an unconstitutional usurpation of the presidency.”
Legal analysts warn that if these allegations are substantiated, the implications could be profound. The U.S. Constitution vests executive power solely in the president, and any delegation of that power without explicit authorization could invalidate major policies and executive orders. Scholars note that while presidents such as Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama occasionally used autopens, none ever did so to approve consequential directives or legislation.
Further testimony is expected from Anthony Bernal, a senior adviser to former First Lady Jill Biden, who may clarify the extent of family involvement in the handling of official documents. Sources close to the inquiry indicate that investigators have already obtained records documenting autopen usage and internal correspondence among senior staff.
The probe’s early findings have triggered a broader debate over transparency, accountability, and the boundaries of executive authority. For decades, the presidency has relied on trusted advisers to manage operations, but the notion that unelected staff might have wielded presidential power without oversight challenges the very foundations of democratic governance.
As Congress expands its investigation, the potential consequences are historic. What began as a procedural review of document-signing protocols has evolved into a constitutional reckoning that could reshape the modern understanding of presidential legitimacy — and redefine how executive power is exercised in the United States.