Former President Joe Biden doubled down on his use of an autopen on Wednesday, insisting that he was in control of the White House during his term in office.

President Donald Trump ordered an investigation into Biden’s administration, alleging that top officials used autopen signatures to cover up the former president’s cognitive decline.

‘I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false,’ Biden said in a statement.

‘This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations,’ he added.

Trump called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to open investigations into top Biden officials on Wednesday, arguing they may have conspired to deceive the public about his mental state and exercised presidential authority through the autopen use.

Trump wrote in a Wednesday memo that the U.S. president has a tremendous amount of power and responsibility through his signature. Not only can the signature turn words into laws of the land, but it also appoints individuals to some of the highest positions in government, creates or eliminates national policies and allows prisoners to go free.

‘In recent months, it has become increasingly apparent that former President Biden’s aides abused the power of Presidential signatures through the use of an autopen to conceal Biden’s cognitive decline and assert Article II authority,’ Trump wrote. ‘This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history. The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden’s signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.’

‘Given clear indications that President Biden lacked the capacity to exercise his Presidential authority, if his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity, while taking radical executive actions all in his name, that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the Presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden’s name,’ he added.

House Republicans, led by Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, launched an investigation earlier last month aimed at determining whether Biden, who was in declining health during the final months of his presidency, was mentally fit to authorize the use of the autopen. Comer said last week he was ‘open’ to dragging Biden before the House to answer questions about the matter if necessary. 

Fox News’ Greg Wehner contributed to this report

Elon Musk’s diatribe against President Donald Trump’s ‘one big, beautiful bill’ continued Wednesday as Senate Republicans embarked on their own course to tweak and reshape the gargantuan legislative package.

The former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) rehashed a similar talking point from his takedown of a previous House GOP government funding bill in December, which, after his input, was gutted and reworked.

The nation’s debt sits at over $36 trillion, according to FOX Business’ National Debt Tracker.

‘Call your Senator, Call your Congressman,’ Musk said among a flurry of posts on X. ‘Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL.’

Though Musk’s continued tirade against the bill sent House Republicans into a tizzy, on the other side of the Capitol, senators were busy hashing out the finer points of the legislation.

This time around, Musk, who just ended his four-month tenure as a special government employee rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, may not have the same level of impact, given that senators want their chance to shape the bill.

‘I mean, if Elon was going to give me advice on how to get to the moon, I’d listen,’ said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. ‘You know, if he was going to give me advice on how to raise several billion dollars from other billionaires, I’d listen.’

‘But… he doesn’t govern, you know, and so, to be honest, Elon, he’s not that big a factor,’ he continued. ‘I know he’s a glamorous sort of celebrity, but he’s not a big factor.’

Cramer’s comments came after Senate Republicans heard from the chairs of the Senate Banking, Armed Services and Commerce committees on how they would approach their respective portions of the megabill in a closed-door meeting.

After that meeting, members of the Senate Finance Committee, which will handle the tax portion of the package, met with Trump later to shore up support for the tax package.

Sen. Roger Marshall, R.-Kan., said that the president’s main message during the meeting was to ‘pass the damn bill’ with as few changes as possible. When asked if Trump seemed concerned about Musk’s impact on the bill’s fate, the lawmaker said ‘absolutely not.’  

‘It was almost laugh— more of a laughing conversation for 30 seconds,’ he said. ‘It was very much in jest and laughing, and I think he said something positive about Elon, appreciating what he did for the country.’

Congressional Republicans intend to use the budget reconciliation process to skirt the Senate filibuster, meaning they do not need Senate Democrats to pass the package. However, they do need at least 51 Senate Republicans to get on board.

The Senate’s shot at tinkering with the reconciliation package comes after months of deliberations and negotiations in the House that culminated in a package that Trump has thrown his full support behind.

Some lawmakers want higher spending cuts to the tune of $2 trillion, others want a full rollback to pre-pandemic spending. Then there are pockets of resistance solidifying around cuts to Medicaid and green energy tax credit provisions baked into the House’s offering.

Among the green energy provisions on the chopping block are electric vehicle tax credits. Speculation has swirled that their proposed demise could be the driving force, in part, behind Musk’s anger toward the bill.

‘Any senator with a brain sees Elon’s comments for what they are, a CEO worried about losing business,’ a Senate Republican source told Fox News Digital. ‘The only reason he’s causing a fuss is because we’re getting rid of pork that benefits his electric car company.’

Musk had been pushing for deeper spending cuts until his new demand that the bill be nuked. Currently, the House GOP’s offering sets a goal of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade that, coupled with expected growth, would help offset the roughly $4 trillion price tag of making the president’s first-term tax cuts permanent.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, engaged with some of Musk’s posts on Tuesday and appeared to agree with the tech billionaire’s position that the bill had to go further to cut spending.

‘I think most of what he’s saying is he would like it to do more and be more aggressive to try to address the debt and deficit problem,’ Lee said.

However, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found in its latest report that the bill would only cut $1.3 trillion, reduce revenues by roughly $3.7 trillion and add in the neighborhood of $2.4 trillion to the deficit.

Some lawmakers who had found common ground with Musk’s earlier anger with the ‘big, beautiful bill’ still found a common ally on the second day of his rant.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., reiterated to Fox News Digital that he shared Musk’s ‘skepticism’ of the bill. He would not say whether he agreed that congressional Republicans should start from scratch, but noted that his main objection to the bill was a plan to increase the nation’s debt limit by $5 trillion.

‘My main goal is to say, take the debt ceiling and make it a separate vote, and then vote on a separate bill, and then there’s still a need for less spending,’ he said. ‘But I would be very open to supporting the bill if we had more spending cuts and the debt ceiling was a separate vote.’

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth kicked off Pride month this year with a shot across the bow of wokeness, as his plan to rechristen a Navy ship honoring gay rights icon Harvey Milk has emerged.

Milk was one of the first openly gay elected officials in the country as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1978, and in that same year he was gunned down, leaving him a legacy as a martyr to the cause of gay liberation.

Let’s be clear about two things. First, Hegseth is absolutely trolling the woke left with this move and its timing. Secondly, he is absolutely right to do so, because a navy vessel has nothing to do with men having sex with each other and that is the only thing painting ‘Harvey Milk’ on the side of the ship implies.

Harvey Milk is not a hero to everyone in the United States. One can wholeheartedly support equal rights without celebrating homosexuality, and asking naval officers and civilians to serve on the USNS Harvey Milk does just that.

The ship, which transports oil, isn’t named after Milk, who happened to be gay; it’s named after Milk because he was gay, and Hegseth is correct that this is wildly inappropriate. 

Why not the USNS Liberace? Think of the boon it would be to the domestic chandelier industry.

Progressives seem deeply confused these days about why they don’t appeal to young men, and I would like to submit that the USNS Harvey Milk is a pretty good example of why. 

You take some 18-year-old guy, maybe he watched ‘Top Gun Maverick’ a few too many times and wants to be a warfighter, then you point and say, there’s your ship, it celebrates dudes making out with dudes.

Let’s face it, most sailors in the Navy do not want to be sitting in a diner in 25 years wearing a ballcap that proudly states they served on the ‘Harvey Milk,’ and that’s OK.

Predictably, former House Speaker and San Francisco’s own Rep. Nancy Pelosi decried the decision to rename the ship, calling it, ‘a shameful vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers…’

Is there an element of revenge in Hegseth’s action? There might be, because for decades now Americans have been forced to swallow the bizarre notion that who you have sex with is something to be proud of, as if we should all applaud.

For decades now, every June at ballgames and in TV ads, on municipal buildings and subway trains the rainbow flag has been everywhere, demanding your consent to celebrate gayness.

In recent years, as the teal of the trans flag has bled into the rainbow, we have once again been told that we must accept an absurd lie that men can become women, as if this was just some a priori truth.

Not this time, and as America rejects the trans movement, it is also realizing that bending over backwards every June to cheer on homosexuality makes no sense in a society where gay people face little to no discrimination.

A warship has one purpose, to help to destroy our enemies. Everything about the vessel should be directed towards that goal, including the name emblazoned on it. ‘Harvey Milk’ fails that test.

Throughout the first quarter of the 21st Century, progressives have made enormous gains in American society, and they have generally assumed that once their new norms are established, they cannot be undone.

Hegseth, as he has done before by restoring the names of army bases changed by progressives, is showing that we can indeed go back. History is not a one-way ratchet that only turns left.

Progressives are firmly convinced that everything is an occasion for activism, that their preferred lifestyle and worldview should be threaded into every aspect of our lives. This is wrongheaded in general, but especially so in regard to warfare.

Hegseth is popular with soldiers and vets alike because he understands that his primary job is to kill the enemy while keeping his guys alive. It’s not to promote gay rights, it’s not to foster social justice, it is to destroy.

By all means, name a community center or a clinic after Harvey Milk, but not a warship. Those willing to put their lives on the line aboard deserve better.

There is mounting evidence that Joe Biden was president in name only during much of his time in office. In his stead, a cabal of top White House staffers appears to have secretly operated a de facto presidency, making crucial decisions without a shred of constitutional authority.  

If proven true, it would call into question the validity of pardons and executive orders issued under his name but without his knowledge or consent. For this reason, it is imperative that Biden’s closest advisers answer questions under oath and others in his orbit be forced to disclose what they knew or observed.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation into the pardons, commutations and clemencies granted in the waning days of Biden’s presidency, including preemptive pardons gifted to a half dozen members of his own family along with his shifty son, Hunter Biden. The probe focuses on whether the elder Biden was competent and whether others were taking advantage of his seemingly diminished mental state.  

At the same time, the House Oversight Committee is intensifying its own inquiry into the alleged ‘cover-up’ of Biden’s cognitive decline. Of particular interest in both investigations is ‘the potential unauthorized use of autopen’ for many executive actions, said Oversight Chairman James Comer.

Did rogue actors commandeer the device from a clueless Biden to advance their own political and personal agendas? Was national security jeopardized in the process? Let’s call it, ‘The Case of the Runaway Autopen.’ Solving it won’t be easy, given Washington’s proclivity for concealment, deception, obstruction and lies.       

Comer has requested that five former Biden aides, including his physician Kevin O’Connor, sit down for transcribed interviews.  If they resist, subpoenas will be issued. While Biden might assert Executive Privilege to keep them mum, President Trump could override the privilege just as Biden did to Trump after his first term. Assuming he is sentient, Joe might now wish he had not done so.  

The issue of whether pardons and executive orders could be invalidated is not as simple as some legal experts have opined. They assert, for example, that nothing can be done because there is no constitutional mechanism to revoke or overturn pardons once granted. That is only half true.

There is a well-established legal basis for annulling documents. It is founded in common law.  It is called fraud. Under statutory law, it is known as forgery. (See 18 USC 471 and 495). Each are crimes that would render the signed instruments inoperative and unenforceable.    

Just ask the U.S. Supreme Court, which long ago declared unanimously, ‘There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.’ (United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, (1878))  There exists no exception for presidential documents.  

But let’s back up.

An autopen is a mechanical device that activates a robotic arm with a pen attached. It imitates a person’s signature, although it is identifiable by a consistent impression on the paper. Past presidents have utilized the autopen for a variety of documents. It is perfectly legal but with an important caveat —there must be consent by the purported ‘signator.’ In this case, that’s Biden.     

If the 46th president never consented or, worse, had no knowledge of the autopen’s use for any given document bearing his signature, it could be deemed null and void under law. If Biden was not even competent or mentally fit to provide knowing consent, the result is the same. 

Two decades ago, the Justice Department formally approved presidential deployment of the autopen, but only if a President personally ‘directs’ a subordinate to affix his signature to a specified document. However, the DOJ cautioned that the chief executive may never ‘delegate’ the actual decision to approve and sign any document with the device. That right rests exclusively with a president.   

The sheer volume of suspected Biden autopen usage merits closer scrutiny. The growing number of descriptive accounts of his worsening mental infirmities and incoherence magnifies the need for an intensive investigation. 

If his aides deliberately obscured their boss’s health problems, did they also circumvent his permission for orders issued under his name? Did they act on their own because they knew Biden was not cognizant or otherwise feared his confused response? Americans deserve honest answers. But expecting to get them from highly secretive political operatives is fanciful at best.

House Speaker Mike Johnson recently recounted his first private meeting with Biden last year during which the President had no idea that he signed an executive order weeks earlier pausing the exports of liquified natural gas. When Johnson pressed him, a stunned Biden insisted, ‘I didn’t do that!’ The speaker patiently explained that he did and a copy could be retrieved, yet the President insisted, ‘No, I didn’t do that.’  

‘He genuinely did not know what he had signed,’ said Johnson later. ‘And I walked out of that meeting with fear and loathing because I thought, ‘We are in serious trouble —who is running the country?’ Like, I don’t know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn’t know.’  

It is possible that the executive order was signed by autopen without the consent or knowledge of the president. In the alternative, did Biden sign something that he was incapable of understanding? Perhaps his aides willfully misrepresented its contents. Or maybe Biden was so mentally impaired that he couldn’t remember what he had for breakfast, much less having signed an export ban that cratered American GDP by upwards of $200 billion.

It is beyond curious that the preemptive pardons handed out like Halloween candy to Dr. Anthony Fauci, members of the J-6 committee and six of Biden’s immediate relatives all bear the unique marks of an autopen. By contrast, Hunter Biden’s pardon almost certainly resembles his father’s genuine and shaky signature. Why the difference? Did Biden verily approve or direct the group pardons? Or did someone command the autopen without assent?

There is substantial and compelling evidence that Biden was sliding further and further into mental decay as his presidency progressed. Americans are right to wonder just who was running the country. Biden himself seemed to answer the question during several of his rare public outings.  

In one memorable appearance he said, ‘Sorry, but I’ll get in trouble with my staff if I don’t do this the right way.’  In another, a confused Biden turned to staffers and asked, ‘Am I allowed to take questions? Where’s my staff?’ On a still another occasion he mumbled with regret, ‘I thought when I got to be President, I’d get to do things I wanted to do, but my staff tells me what I can’t do.’ These are stunning confessionals.   

There is no need to recite the myriad of instances where Americans witnessed a faltering and enfeebled Biden wandering around a stage lost and bewildered. He was not ‘compos mentis.’ His mental faculties dwindled. His ability to think and communicate vanished. It all came crashing down on the night of June 27, 2024. The disastrous presidential debate reinforced the truth of his withering condition.     

It is increasingly apparent that a coterie of unelected White House aides who connived to hide Biden’s declining state were the ones making vital decisions behind the scenes. They reportedly called themselves the ‘Politburo,’ a nod to the ruling committee of the communist party in the former Soviet Union. The symmetry is not coincidental; it is revealing. They maneuvered and manipulated in a culture of dishonesty.

With Biden mentally incapable of fully performing the demanding duties of his high office, it seems that others took it upon themselves to arrogate his authority. This would constitute a shameful abuse of power that contravenes our constitutional framework. It merits comprehensive investigations by both Congress and the Department of Justice.

In responding to the probes, Biden issued a statement on Wednesday insisting, ‘I made the decisions about pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations,’ adding that ‘any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.’ The denial is no surprise. But is it more of the same pretense and cover-up that came to define his presidency? Did Joe even write that statement?

Almost five years ago in my August 2020 podcast, I warned that if Joe Biden was elected, he would become a ‘Marionette President’ controlled by unscrupulous White House puppeteers making critical decisions for the nation. I wasn’t prescient, only paying attention to what was plainly visible.

What is so confounding —and equally alarming— is how long the deceitful charade lasted. As it slowly unravels, we are reminded that calculating lies rarely endure the engine of truth.