House Speaker Mike Johnson is challenging the legitimacy of former President Joe Biden’s pardons after a lengthy House Oversight report raised questions about who actually approved them. The focus is on autopen-signed actions and whether Biden personally authorized what his name was used to certify.

“It sounds like a terrible novel or something, but this is reality,” Mike Johnson said, responding to allegations that Biden’s inner circle hid signs of mental decline.

Johnson argued that the problem is clearest in the clemency record. He says the White House moved entire categories of offenders through the system without the president’s full awareness. He connected that concern to public safety and accountability.

“And so the pardons, for example, he pardoned categories of violent criminals and turned them loose on the streets, and he didn’t even know who. He didn’t even know what the categories were, apparently, much less the individual people, that he pardoned,” Mike Johnson said.

Johnson added that these pardons are “invalid on their face.”

“I mean, I used to be a constitutional litigator. I would love to take this case,” Mike Johnson said.

The House Oversight Committee’s Republican majority released a report running about one hundred pages. It reviews Biden-era executive actions signed with an autopen and weighs whether staff signed off on decisions that, under the Constitution, must be the president’s alone. The clemency program takes center stage in those concerns.

Oversight Chairman James Comer raised direct doubts about the legitimacy of autopen-approved executive actions, singling out clemency orders among them. He urged the Department of Justice to look at the record.

Comer said those autopen actions should be considered “void.”

Pressed on how that could work, Johnson pointed to the pardon power as uniquely sensitive to personal presidential action. He suggested courts could assess whether autopen clemency, absent the president’s informed sign-off, passes constitutional muster.

“You can’t allow a president to check out and have unelected, unaccountable, faceless people making massive decisions for the country,” Mike Johnson said.

The White House rejects the allegations. A Biden spokesperson insisted the president was in charge, and that the GOP is chasing a political narrative instead of focusing on governing.

“This investigation into baseless claims has confirmed what has been clear from the start: President Biden made the decisions of his presidency. There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, and no wrongdoing. Congressional Republicans should stop focusing on political retribution and instead work to end the government shutdown,” a Biden spokesperson said.

Biden has said publicly that he alone was responsible for presidential decisions.

“I made every decision,” Joe Biden said in an interview.

The clash sets up a high-stakes constitutional test. Johnson is a former constitutional litigator and says the pardon power cannot be outsourced. Comer wants DOJ to evaluate whether staff-directed autopen use crossed legal lines. If a court agrees, entire batches of clemency could be reopened, triggering notice to recipients and waves of litigation.

Even if courts find no broad violation, the pressure will mount for a clear record of presidential intent on every clemency. That could mean affidavits, recorded briefings, or stricter autopen protocols to prove the president reviewed each case. Congress may also seek more transparency on who prepared the lists, what criteria were used, and how the signatures were authorized.

At the same time, the White House stance sets its own marker. It insists the president personally made the calls and that autopen use followed legal norms. That means the next move may fall to DOJ, which now faces demands from House Republicans to review the clemency files and the approval chain behind them.

For families, prosecutors, and victims’ advocates, the result matters now. If clemency orders are questioned, communities and courts may face uncertainty. If they are upheld, Republicans will pivot to policy reforms that require documented presidential sign-off and tighter controls on mass actions.

Either way, the fight has moved from the political arena to a legal one. It is about who holds the pen — and who actually used it.