Connect with us

Politics

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

Published

on

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing its investigation into former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen in the final months of his administration — focusing on pardons and commutations — though a senior official said Biden is unlikely to face criminal exposure.

A senior DOJ official told Fox News the autopen investigation is ongoing and not closed, adding investigators are reviewing clemency actions taken in the final months of the Biden administration.

The official also pointed out, however, that the use of an autopen by a sitting president is “established law.”

The issue under review is whether the autopen was used in violation of the law, specifically, whether Biden personally approved each name included on pardon and commutation lists.

Advertisement

A framed portrait shows former President Joe Biden’s signature and an autopen along “The Presidential Walk of Fame” outside the Oval Office of the White House.  (Andrew Harnick/Getty Images)

“These types of cases are tough. Executive privilege issues come into play,” the official said.

What is also clear, the official indicated, is that the target of any potential prosecution would not likely be Biden.

“It’s hard to imagine how [Biden] could be criminally liable for pardon power,” the senior DOJ official said.

BIDEN’S AUTOPEN PARDONS DISTURBED DOJ BRASS, DOCS SHOW, RAISING QUESTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY BINDING

Advertisement

The use of the autopen by former President Joe Biden remains under investigation. (AP Photo)

The official noted that one reason the former president would be unlikely to face charges stems from a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that originally involved current President Donald Trump but would also apply to Biden.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States in 2024. 

“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”

Sources familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s team continues to review the Biden White House’s reliance on an autopen, contradicting a recent New York Times report that indicated the investigation had been paused.

Advertisement

DOJ SIGNALS IT’S STILL DIGGING INTO BIDEN AUTOPEN USE DESPITE REPORTS PROBE FIZZLED

President Donald Trump has pushed for consequences for former President Joe Biden’s alleged use of the autopen. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Trump has pushed for consequences over the autopen controversy, alleging on social media that aides acted unlawfully in its use and raising the prospect of perjury charges against Biden.

Biden has rejected those claims, saying in a statement last year he personally directed the decisions in question.

“Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

Advertisement

The House Oversight Committee has homed in on Biden’s clemency actions, including five controversial pardons for family members in the final days of his presidency, citing what it described as a lack of “contemporaneous documentation” confirming that Biden directly ordered the pardons.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The committee asked the DOJ to investigate “all of former President Biden’s executive actions, particularly clemency actions, to assess whether legal action must be taken to void any action that the former president did not, in fact, take himself.”

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Related Article

Top Biden officials questioned and criticized how his team issued pardons, used autopen: report

Politics

Video: Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope

Published

on

Video: Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope

new video loaded: Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope

transcript

transcript

Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope

An audience member heckled Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday at a Turning Point USA event. And Vance addressed Pope Leo’s criticism of the war in Iran, saying he should be careful when speaking about theology.

[Heckler] “Jesus Christ does not support genocide.” [Vance] “I certainly think the answer is yes, [Vance] and I agree. [Vance] Jesus Christ does not — [Vance] I agree, Jesus Christ certainly does not support genocide, [Vance] whoever yelled that out from the dark.” [Heckler] “You’re involved, JD. You’re killing children.” [Vance] “Right now, you see more humanitarian aid [Vance] coming into Gaza than it has [Vance] any time in the past five years. I recognize that a lot of young voters don’t love the policy that we have in the Middle East.” “I like that the pope is an advocate for peace. I think that’s certainly one of his roles. On the other hand, how can you say that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword? Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated France from the Nazis? I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology. And I think that one of these issues here is that there has been, is — again, hey, random dude screaming, I told you I’d respond to your point.”

Advertisement
An audience member heckled Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday at a Turning Point USA event. And Vance addressed Pope Leo’s criticism of the war in Iran, saying he should be careful when speaking about theology.

By Shawn Paik

April 15, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Spanberger signs gun bills, makes a proposed gun ban even harsher

Published

on

Spanberger signs gun bills, makes a proposed gun ban even harsher

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a series of gun-control bills Tuesday, toughening a proposed assault-firearms ban before sending it back to lawmakers, which drew immediate backlash from Republicans and is likely to draw a constitutional objection from the Justice Department.

The Democrat governor’s changes to House Bill 217/Senate Bill 749 remove the word “fixed” from part of the bill’s definition of an assault firearm, which could sharply expand the range of semi-automatic rifles and pistols swept into the ban, Republicans say.

“If there was any doubt that Gov. Spanberger was coming for our firearms, this substitute removes it,” House of Delegates Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, told News WCYB 5 in a statement. “Not only does it keep in place the de facto ban on some of the most common firearms in Virginia, it goes further and appears to create a ban on any firearm that can accept a magazine of more than 15 rounds.

“That includes the vast majority of firearms in Virginia that are in common use for legal purposes.”

Advertisement

ATLANTA TEEN ARRESTED FOR MURDER AFTER FATAL SHOOTING OF 12-YEAR-OLD INSIDE HOME

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger delivers the Democratic response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on February 24, 2026 in Williamsburg, Virginia. Spanberger is serving in her first year as governor and is the first woman to hold the position in the Commonwealth of Virginia. (Getty Images)

The U.S. Department of Justice warned in a letter released Friday that the measure raises constitutional concerns and threatened legal action if the state enforces a ban that infringes on protected firearms.

“This letter provides formal notice that the Civil Rights Division will commence litigation in the event the Commonwealth of Virginia enacts certain bills that unconstitutionally limit law-abiding Americans’ individual right to bear arms,” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon wrote in the letter to Virginia Democrat Attorney General Jay Jones before Spanberger’s moves Tuesday. “Specifically, SB 749, as written, would require Virginia law enforcement agencies to engage in a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use.

“The Second Amendment protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles for lawful purposes,” she added, citing the unanimous Supreme Court opinion that the AR-15 is “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.”

Advertisement

Dhillon said her division “will seek to enjoin any attempt to infringe the right of law-abiding Virginians to acquire constitutional protected arms[.]”

“@SpanbergerForVA is on notice: 2A rights SHALL NOT BE infringed,” Dhillon wrote Friday on X. “We are closely watching—in the event any unlawful legislation is enacted, we will sue. @CivilRights will protect the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens in Virginia.

DESANTIS URGES FLORIDA LAWMAKERS TO BAN COUSIN MARRIAGES, LINKS PRACTICE TO ‘STEALTH JIHAD’

Harmeet Dhillon announced a new Second Amendment section to protect gun rights and challenge state restrictions. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Undaunted, Spanberger moved forward framing the law as a public-safety push, saying the state is trying to balance Second Amendment rights with efforts to reduce gun violence.

Advertisement

“I grew up in a family where responsible gun ownership was expected, and I carried a firearm every day as a former federal agent,” she wrote in a statement. “I support the Second Amendment. But gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in America, and that should motivate all of us to ask ourselves what we can do to mitigate this harm.

“This is why I’ve made amendments to provide clarity for both responsible gun owners and law enforcement, making clear what these changes mean in practice — as Virginians safely purchase and store their firearms,” she continued. “These commonsense steps will help keep our families, our communities, and our law enforcement officers safe.”

GUNS AND GANJA: SUPREME COURT SKEPTICAL OF FEDERAL LAW BANNING FIREARM POSSESSION FOR REGULAR MARIJUANA USERS

The bill would ban the future sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of covered firearms and magazines over 15 rounds, while exempting firearms legally owned before July 1, 2026. It would create a Class 1 misdemeanor for violations and impose limits on how grandfathered firearms could later be transferred or sold.

The legislation now heads back to the General Assembly, which must decide whether to accept Spanberger’s amendments.

Advertisement

DESANTIS CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE FOR RELEASING SEX OFFENDER WHO THEN ALLEGEDLY KILLED STEPDAUGHTER

Spanberger also signed several other gun-related bills without changes, including House Bill 21, which requires firearm manufacturers, dealers and distributors to adopt “reasonable controls” aimed at preventing illegal sales and misuse. The law also opens the door for civil action by the attorney general, local governments and private individuals if a firearm industry member’s actions or omissions are alleged to have contributed to public harm.

She also signed House Bill 110, which bars leaving a firearm in plain view inside an unattended vehicle, and House Bill 40, which bans the manufacture, sale, transfer and possession of unserialized homemade firearms, commonly known as ghost guns.

“In all, the General Assembly has forwarded to you over 20 bills that restrict Second Amendment rights,” Dhillon’s warning to Jones concluded. “I urge you to reconsider allowing any bill that would infringe on the lawful use of protected firearms by law-abiding citizens to become law.

“In an effort to avoid unnecessary litigation, the Second Amendment Section stands ready to meet and confer with attorneys in the Virginia Attorney General Office.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens shall not be infringed.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

In 1960, fears over papal influence. In 2026, a president attacks a pope

Published

on

In 1960, fears over papal influence. In 2026, a president attacks a pope

It was hard to miss President Trump’s very public spat with Pope Leo XIV this week.

The split was the first time in modern memory that an American president has so openly badmouthed a sitting pontiff, or, for that matter, distributed an image depicting himself as Jesus Christ. Critics cried “blasphemy!” even as supporters continued to stand behind the man whose presidency, some argue, was God sent.

Students of American history will recall an earlier incident that pitted papal and presidential authority against each other. The concern: that a president would align himself too closely to the church, or even take orders from the pope.

That anxiety seeped into the 1960 presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy, whose eventual victory would make him the first Catholic president.

Back then, Kennedy was constantly fending off accusations from Protestant ecclesiastic types who were wary that his nomination meant the pontiff, John XXIII, was already packing his bags for a move into the White House.

Advertisement

President John F. Kennedy meets with Pope Paul VI at the Vatican in July 1963, one month after Paul succeeded John XXIII as pontiff.

(Bettmann Archive / Getty Images)

The issue was so pronounced that 150 clergymen and laypeople formed Citizens for Religious Freedom, which in a pamphlet warned, “It is inconceivable to us that a Roman Catholic President would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies and demands.”

One particularly loud voice among the ministers was the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, a popular and influential pastor and author. Peale was especially disturbed by Kennedy’s prospects.

Advertisement

“Our American culture is at stake,” he said at a meeting of the ministers. “I don’t say it won’t survive, but it won’t be what it was.”

The group asked Kennedy to “drop by Houston” to make clear his views on faith and government. He agreed, making a televised speech at the Rice Hotel, where he famously spelled out his firm opinions on the separation of church and state.

“I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy told the group. “I am the Democratic Party’s nominee for president who happens to be Catholic.”

Time magazine reflected on the address some years later, concluding that the speech had gone so well for Kennedy “that many felt the dramatic moment was an important part of his victory.”

Since then, modern presidents have occasionally found themselves at odds with the Vatican. Typically Republican presidents would hear from the pope about foreign wars, while Democratic presidents were derided over abortion policies.

Advertisement

But such disagreements tended to be handled with the decorous language of diplomacy.

A man in a dark suit presents a medal on a ribbon to a man in white skullcap and religious robes, seated in an armchair

President George W. Bush presents Pope John Paul II with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in Rome on June 4 , 2004. The pope reminded Bush of the Vatican’s opposition to the war in Iraq. Bush praised him as a “devoted servant of God.”

(Eric Vandeville/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

Then came Trump, who is now being accused of openly mocking the Catholic faith and the 1st Amendment. He called Leo weak on crime and foreign policy, among other things. A self-described nondenominational Christian who says his favorite book is the Bible, Trump’s hasn’t shied from bashing the pontiff, nor has he hesitated to blur the line separating church and state.

Where Kennedy argued for an absolute separation, Trump has advanced a model of religious resurgence, promising “pews will be fuller, younger and more faithful than they have been in years.” Through initiatives including the “America Prays” program launched last year, the White House has sought to bring “bring back God” by inviting millions of Americans to prayer sessions. The webpage for the program focuses features only Christian Scripture.

Advertisement

“From the earliest days of the republic, faith in God has been the ultimate source of the nation’s strength,” Trump said at a National Prayer Breakfast in February.

A man in a dark suit, hands clasped on a desk, is surrounded by other people standing near windows with gold curtains

President Trump, then-Vice President Mike Pence and faith leaders say a prayer during the signing of a proclamation in the Oval Office on Sept. 1, 2017. .

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

In the United States, the Catholic Church historically has “loved the 1st Amendment” and its guarantee of religious liberty and, as a result, largely kept some distance from government, according to Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and religious commentator. After its failures attempting to influence monarchs and politicians in Europe, the Catholic Church “didn’t want the government interfering with them and knew that it wasn’t their right to interfere with the government,” Reese said.

Kennedy loved the 1st Amendment too. He put it above his own religious beliefs, and said as much on his way to the White House.

Advertisement

“I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the 1st Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty,” he said. “Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so.”

A man with glasses, in red vestments, holds out his hands in prayer in a room with ornate blue and yellow mosaic walls

Pope Leo XIV meets with members of the community in Algiers at the Basilica of Our Lady of Africa on April 13, 2026.

(Vatican Pool via Getty Images)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending