The Last-Minute Fauci Pardon: Autopen Controversy, Trump’s Distraction Narrative, and the Epstein Files

In the waning hours of President Joe Biden’s presidency on January 20, 2025, a series of preemptive pardons were issued, shielding high-profile figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired General Mark Milley, members of the January 6 House Select Committee, and Biden’s own family members from potential prosecutions under the incoming administration of President Donald Trump.

These pardons, reportedly signed using an autopen—a mechanical device that replicates a signature—have sparked intense debate, with critics questioning their legitimacy and Trump labeling them “void” and “vacant.”

Meanwhile, a growing chorus of voices, particularly on social media platforms like X, argues that the focus on the autopen controversy is a deliberate distraction from the unresolved Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the alleged “client list” tied to his sex trafficking network.

The Fauci Pardon and the Autopen Revelation

On January 20, 2025, just hours before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, President Biden issued a sweeping set of preemptive pardons to protect individuals he believed faced politically motivated prosecutions under the incoming Trump administration. Among the recipients was Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Biden’s chief medical advisor during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fauci, a polarizing figure due to his role in shaping pandemic policies and his clashes with conservative critics, was pardoned to shield him from potential legal action related to his handling of the COVID-19 response, including allegations of perjury over gain-of-function research funded by NIAID at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The pardons were executed using an autopen, a device commonly used in government to replicate signatures on large volumes of documents. Biden defended this practice in a July 2025 interview with The New York Times, stating, “I made every single one of those [clemency] decisions… the autopen is legal… because there were a lot of them.”

However, the use of the autopen has fueled speculation that Biden was incapacitated or unaware of the pardons, a claim amplified by a March 2025 report from the conservative Heritage Foundation, which alleged that Biden used the device to sign pardons for Fauci, Milley, and others while on vacation. Posts on X, such as one by @LeadingReport on June 5, 2025, claimed Biden signed only his son Hunter’s pardon by hand, implying that the autopen was used for politically sensitive cases to obscure Biden’s direct involvement.

Fauci, in a statement to Politico, expressed gratitude for the pardon but maintained, “I have committed no crime and there are no possible grounds for any allegation or threat of criminal investigation or prosecution of me.” The pardon, he noted, was unsolicited, as the White House had reached out a month prior to discuss the action.

Critics, including Trump and his allies, argue that the pardon implies guilt, a view complicated by legal debates over whether accepting a pardon constitutes an admission of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court’s precedent is murky, with a 1915 ruling suggesting acceptance implies guilt, while a later decision indicated pardons could be valid without acceptance.

Trump’s Response and the Distraction Narrative

President Trump has seized on the autopen issue, declaring in a March 17, 2025, social media post that Biden’s pardons, including Fauci’s, are “void, vacant, and of no further force or effect” because they were signed by autopen, implying Biden did not personally authorize them. Trump further claimed, without evidence, that Biden “did not know anything about them,” framing the pardons as a conspiracy by Biden’s aides to shield political allies. This narrative aligns with broader Republican allegations, supported by a Heritage Foundation report, that Biden’s staff ran the presidency in his name due to his alleged cognitive decline.

However, posts on X and some commentators argue that Trump’s focus on the autopen is a calculated distraction from the Epstein case, particularly the unresolved question of Epstein’s alleged “client list.” A July 2025 post by @catturd2, with 3.7 million followers, questioned how Ghislaine Maxwell could be serving a 20-year sentence for trafficking minors to “nobody” if no client list exists, reflecting public frustration with the DOJ’s claim that no such list was found. Similarly, conservative influencers like Robby Starbuck and the Hodge Twins have accused the Trump administration, particularly Attorney General Pam Bondi, of mishandling the Epstein files, with some suggesting the autopen controversy is a way to shift focus from Bondi’s contradictory statements about the case.

In February 2025, Bondi claimed to have an Epstein “client list” on her desk for review, only for the DOJ to later assert in a July 7, 2025, memo that no such list exists. Trump’s defense of Bondi, calling the Epstein case a “distraction” on Truth Social, has further fueled suspicions among his base that the administration is avoiding transparency. Posts on X, such as one by @amuse on May 22, 2025, allege a cover-up, with whistleblowers pointing to Biden’s aides and even First Lady Jill Biden as orchestrating the autopen pardons. These claims, while unverified, underscore the sentiment that the autopen debate is being used to deflect attention from the Epstein files, which many believe could implicate powerful figures across political and economic spheres.

Legal Grounds for Overturning Pardons

The controversy over the autopen pardons has raised questions about whether they can be legally overturned. Trump’s assertion that the pardons are “void” hinges on three potential arguments: (1) the use of an autopen invalidates the president’s direct consent, (2) the pardons were issued without a miscarriage of justice, and (3) Biden was not duly elected or was incapacitated, rendering his actions illegitimate. However, legal experts and historical precedent cast doubt on these claims.

1. Autopen Legality: The use of an autopen is well-established in government practice and has been deemed legal for signing legislation and other documents. In 2005, the DOJ issued an opinion allowing autopen use for legislation, and President Barack Obama used it in 2011 to sign an extension of the Patriot Act.

Biden himself noted that Trump has used autopens for minor documents, such as letters to supporters. There is no constitutional or statutory requirement that a president personally sign a pardon, and the Constitution grants broad pardon powers for federal offenses, with no explicit mechanism to undo them. A post by @WHLeavitt on July 5, 2025, claiming that over 100 constitutional experts believe autopen-signed pardons are void, lacks verifiable evidence and contradicts established legal norms.

2. No Miscarriage of Justice: Traditionally, pardons are issued to correct miscarriages of justice or grant clemency to convicted individuals. Biden’s preemptive pardons, including Fauci’s, were issued to prevent “unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions,” a rationale Biden defended as responding to “exceptional circumstances.”

While critics argue that preemptive pardons for uncharged individuals lack a clear miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of such pardons, as seen in President Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon for Watergate-related offenses. The absence of a specific crime does not inherently invalidate a pardon, weakening this argument.

3. Presidential Authority and Coherence: Claims that Biden was not duly elected or was incapacitated rely on unproven allegations of voter fraud or cognitive decline. Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 election, and no court has overturned this result. Allegations of incapacity, amplified by Trump and the Heritage Foundation, lack concrete evidence, and Biden’s July 2025 interview with The New York Times reaffirmed his personal involvement in the pardon decisions.

Overturning a pardon on these grounds would require unprecedented judicial intervention, as no constitutional mechanism exists to challenge a president’s clemency authority.

Despite months of rhetoric, no legal action has been taken to overturn Biden’s pardons as of July 14, 2025. The Justice Department and Republican-led congressional investigations have probed the autopen issue, but no court challenges have emerged, suggesting that Trump’s claims may be more political theater than actionable policy.

The Epstein Files as the Real Issue

The Epstein case remains a lightning rod for public distrust, with many believing that the autopen controversy is a distraction from the failure to release Epstein’s alleged client list. The DOJ’s July 7, 2025, memo, which found no evidence of a client list or blackmail scheme, has been met with skepticism, particularly after Bondi’s earlier claim of possessing such a list. Social media posts, including those by @infowars and @liz_churchill10, have linked Fauci’s pardon to broader conspiracies, with some alleging it protects him from scrutiny over COVID-19 origins, potentially tied to Epstein’s network of elite influence.

The theory that the Epstein files are being suppressed to protect powerful figures gains traction from the lack of prosecutions against Epstein’s alleged clients, despite Maxwell’s conviction. Critics argue that the focus on Fauci’s pardon and the autopen serves to divert attention from this larger scandal, which could implicate politicians, business leaders, and even intelligence agencies like the CIA and Mossad. While no definitive evidence supports claims of Epstein and Maxwell as intelligence assets, the persistence of these theories reflects public frustration with the lack of transparency.

Fracturing Trust and Political Ramifications

The autopen controversy and the Epstein case have deepened divisions within Trump’s MAGA base. Supporters who expected Trump to deliver on promises of exposing elite corruption are frustrated by his administration’s focus on issues like the autopen while downplaying the Epstein files.

Figures like Elon Musk and Roger Stone have publicly criticized the handling of the Epstein case, with Musk retweeting posts accusing the government of protecting pedophiles. The backlash has led to calls for Bondi’s resignation and threats of resignation from FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, highlighting internal tensions.

Biden’s pardons, while legally robust, have also sparked debate about the precedent they set. Former DOJ officials have warned that preemptive pardons could usher in a new era of executive clemency, potentially undermining accountability if used to shield allies from legitimate investigations. Conversely, Trump’s rhetoric about voiding pardons risks further politicizing the justice system, a concern echoed by Democrats like Senator Adam Schiff, who opposed preemptive pardons as setting a dangerous precedent.