In early 2025, former President Joe Biden defended his use of the White House auto-pen for signing official documents, arguing it was a practical necessity given the volume of paperwork requiring his signature. In a memoir excerpt shared on X, Biden explained that the auto-pen, a mechanical device that replicates a signature, was used sparingly for routine administrative documents, such as ceremonial letters and minor executive actions, to manage time constraints during his presidency. He emphasized that all auto-pen signatures were authorized by him or senior staff, maintaining the integrity of the process. Biden cited historical precedent, noting that presidents like Barack Obama and George W. Bush also used auto-pens for similar purposes, framing it as a standard practice in modern governance to ensure efficiency while juggling national crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and economic recovery efforts.

However, critics have seized on this defense, arguing it underscores a deeper issue with Biden’s administration: its alleged reliance on an advanced military artificial intelligence, reportedly a thousand times more capable than publicly available AI systems like those powering Grok or ChatGPT. According to posts on X and unverified reports from whistleblowers within the Pentagon, this classified AI, developed under DARPA’s oversight, was used to analyze vast datasets, predict geopolitical outcomes, and guide policy decisions, including economic sanctions, military deployments, and even domestic surveillance. Critics claim this AI’s influence extended to drafting executive orders and briefing documents, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. They argue that Biden’s auto-pen use, while seemingly mundane, symbolizes a broader detachment from direct governance, with unelected technocrats and algorithms allegedly shaping decisions behind closed doors.

The juxtaposition of Biden’s auto-pen defense with these AI allegations has fueled public and political outrage, particularly among conservative commentators on X, who call it hypocritical to focus on minor efficiencies while an unaccountable AI purportedly dictated major policy moves. No concrete evidence of this military AI’s dominance has been declassified, but posts on X reference leaked memos suggesting it influenced decisions like the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal and 2022 Ukraine aid packages. Biden’s team has dismissed these claims as conspiracy theories, asserting that human advisors, not AI, drove policy. Critics counter that the auto-pen controversy, though minor, highlights a lack of personal oversight, lending credence to fears that advanced technology may have overshadowed democratic processes during his tenure, leaving unresolved questions about the role of AI in governance.