“Using digital signatures for official correspondence is a common practice for both Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives. Chairman Comer has never hidden the fact that he uses a digital signature when appropriate, and he approves all official correspondence that is signed digitally,” a spokeswoman from the House Oversight Committee said in response to a lengthy list of questions from NBC News. “Legally binding subpoenas issued by Chairman Comer always bear a wet signature and are never signed using an autopen or digital signature. Comparing Chairman Comer’s use of digital signatures for letters to the unauthorized use of an autopen in the Biden White House for legally binding executive actions is absurd and misleading. The two are not even remotely comparable.”
The use of digital signatures has been common in Washington for decades, both in the White House and in Congress. Members of Congress and their staff regularly use printed versions of their signatures to respond to the voluminous amount of correspondence they receive. The practice extends beyond just digital copies of signatures on electronic documents; for years, congressional offices have designated staffers to sign on behalf of the members to alleviate the burden.
“It’s not a very sustainable system,” said Brendan Buck, who was communications director two House speakers, Reps. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Paul Ryan, R-Wis. “And it is quite commonplace to have others in the office apply a signature, even by hand, scribbling out what a member’s signature generally looks like.”
Comer has acknowledged that using an autopen is acceptable at times, but he said it should not be used for “legal documents.”
“Presidents use the autopen, just like I use an autopen, or [Rep.] Jim Jordan or anyone else in Congress to sign correspondence to the massive amounts of messages that you get,” Comer told Newsmax this month. “But no one uses an autopen for legal documents. I can’t use an autopen to sign subpoenas. That’s my legal document. Subpoenas. I have to fly back to Washington, D.C., just to sign one piece of paper.”
Biden himself has pushed back on any assertions that he was not in control of the decisions made in his White House, even the ones that were certified with an autopen signature. In an interview with The New York Times, Biden said the reason the autopen was used was because of the volume of clemency requests the administration was dealing with.
“I made every decision,” Biden told the Times last week. “We’re talking about a whole lot of people.”
A Biden White House official said, “I think the American people are far more concerned about what Trump has to hide about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein than Biden’s legal use of autopen — a practice enjoyed by Comer, Trump, and virtually every elected official in Washington.”
Conservatives in Trump’s MAGA coalition have been demanding more documents from the investigation into Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender who died by suicide in a federal jail cell in 2019.
There is precedent for sending letters with digital signatures like the ones Comer is sending. Most of the ones sent to investigatory targets in the Jan. 6 Select Committee investigation were signed digitally, and committee staff argue the chairman is adhering to a long-held congressional standard.
But Democrats argue that the same standard exists in the White House, and Comer picking and choosing when he physically signs something is arbitrary at best and hypocritical at worst.
“Comer using an autopen to investigate an autopen is just so James. That’s what we love about him, his attention to detail,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., said sarcastically.
House Oversight Republicans are attempting to prove that the use of the autopen was directly connected to Biden’s not being aware that something was being signed on his behalf. At this point, the committee has not specifically said what, if any, documents would fall in that category, and they still have yet to reveal evidence that would back up their theory.
A source with direct knowledge of the committee’s work told NBC News that the focus of their witness interviews has been to understand the process by which presidential decisions were made and communicated to officials who affixed Biden’s signature to official documents. It is the committee’s belief that affixing the president’s signature to a legally binding document without providing him with the necessary background information is inappropriate.
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo on the topic in 2005 that concluded the practice was legal. A federal appeals court ruled as recently as 2024 that “the absence of a writing does not equate to proof that a commutation did not occur,” when it relates to the use of a presidential autopen.
