Story · June 4, 2025

Trump’s autopen probe lands as an accusation, not a finding

Revenge memo Confidence 5/5
★★★★☆Fuckup rating 4/5
Serious fuckup Ranked from 1 to 5 stars based on the scale of the screwup and fallout.
Correction: This story describes allegations in a June 4, 2025 presidential memorandum; it does not reflect a completed finding or proof of wrongdoing.

On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum ordering a review of certain Biden-era presidential actions and the use of an autopen. The White House says the point is to find out who was making decisions while Joe Biden was in office. The document goes further than a records check: it alleges that Biden aides used the device to conceal his cognitive decline and to exercise presidential authority in his name. Those are allegations. They are not findings.

The memorandum directs the attorney general and the White House counsel to investigate whether individuals conspired to mislead the public about Biden’s mental state and whether they unlawfully exercised the powers and duties of the presidency. It also orders a review of executive actions allegedly signed with an autopen, including who authorized its use and whether the resulting policy decisions were valid. The memo’s language is sweeping, but it still stops short of proving that any one action was illegal or that Biden lacked authority across the board.

The White House’s case is built around inference: if Biden was declining, and if aides relied heavily on a mechanical signature device, then the administration wants to know whether power was being exercised by people around him instead of by him. The memorandum says that would raise legal questions about the legitimacy of actions taken in his name. That is a serious claim. It is also a conditional one.

So the story here is not that the administration has established a scandal. It has launched one. Trump has turned an old grievance into an official inquiry, and the memo is written to sound like a constitutional alarm. Whether the review turns up evidence that matches the rhetoric is a separate question. For now, the paper trail shows an accusation, a directive, and a lot of heat. It does not show proof.

Proof attached

Sources used for this report

These are the source links stored with this report when it was published. Open them directly to inspect the underlying reporting or primary document.

Comments

Threaded replies, voting, and reports are live. New users still go through screening on their first approved comments.

Log in to comment


No comments yet. Be the first reasonably on-topic person here.