Biden Aide Faces Subpoena in Autopen Probe

Written by Matthew Collins.

A senior aide to former First Lady Jill Biden, Anthony Bernal, finds himself at the center of a contentious investigation led by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as Republicans intensify their scrutiny of former President Joe Biden’s administration. The committee’s probe focuses on allegations of a cover-up regarding Biden’s cognitive health and the use of an autopen to sign executive documents, raising questions about who truly wielded power in the White House during Biden’s tenure. This article delves into the details of Bernal’s subpoena, the broader context of the investigation, and its implications for transparency and accountability in American governance.

The Subpoena of Anthony Bernal

On June 26, 2025, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) issued a subpoena compelling Anthony Bernal, a longtime senior advisor to Jill Biden, to testify on July 16 at 10:00 a.m. in the Rayburn House Office Building. The deposition, set to be conducted behind closed doors, follows Bernal’s abrupt withdrawal from a voluntary interview scheduled for June 26. Initially, Bernal had agreed to participate in a transcribed session as part of the committee’s investigation into Biden’s mental fitness and the use of an autopen for executive actions. However, after the White House Counsel’s Office waived executive privilege on June 24, stripping Bernal of legal protections, he declined to appear, prompting Comer’s decisive action.

Comer’s office described Bernal’s testimony as “critical” to uncovering the truth about what Republicans allege was a deliberate effort to conceal Biden’s cognitive decline. The chairman’s public statements have been unequivocal, asserting that Bernal’s refusal to testify voluntarily reflects an attempt to evade accountability. “We will stop at nothing to expose the truth about Joe Biden’s decline and unauthorized use of the autopen,” Comer declared, signaling the committee’s determination to pursue the matter aggressively. The subpoena marks a significant escalation in the probe, which has already drawn testimony from other former Biden aides.

The Investigation’s Scope and Allegations

The House Oversight Committee’s investigation centers on two primary concerns: allegations that Biden’s cognitive health was concealed from the public and claims that the autopen—a mechanical device used to replicate a signature—was employed to authorize executive actions without the former president’s direct involvement. Republicans argue that these issues point to a broader pattern of mismanagement, suggesting that unelected aides, including Bernal, may have assumed undue influence over critical decisions during Biden’s presidency, which ended in January 2025.

The autopen controversy has gained particular attention following testimony from Neera Tanden, former director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and staff secretary. On June 24, Tanden testified that she was authorized to direct autopen signatures from October 2021 to May 2023 but had limited direct interaction with Biden. She explained that she sent decision memos to members of the president’s inner circle for approval, often receiving them back without knowing who had granted final clearance. Tanden denied any cover-up of Biden’s mental state, but her testimony raised questions about the chain of command in the Biden White House, fueling Republican suspicions.

Bernal, often described as Jill Biden’s “work husband” due to his close working relationship with the former first lady, is a focal point of the probe because of his proximity to both Bidens. Republicans believe he played a pivotal role in coordinating executive actions and shielding Biden from public scrutiny. The committee’s interest in Bernal intensified after reports suggested that a small group of aides, including Bernal, Annie Tomasini, and Ashley Williams, formed a “protective bubble” around the president, limiting his independence and managing access to him. These claims, coupled with Biden’s age—he left office at 82—have led to speculation about who was truly making decisions in the White House.

For the average reader, consider a corporate scenario where a CEO relies heavily on a trusted deputy to sign off on major decisions. If that deputy signs documents without the CEO’s full awareness, questions arise about accountability and authority. Similarly, the autopen’s use in the Biden administration has sparked concerns about whether executive actions, such as pardons or policy directives, were properly authorized. The committee’s probe seeks to clarify whether Bernal and others bypassed Biden, potentially undermining the democratic process.

Context and Political Dynamics

The investigation into Biden’s administration is part of a broader Republican effort, supported by President Donald Trump, to scrutinize the actions of his predecessor six months after Biden left office. Trump has publicly questioned the legitimacy of Biden’s use of the autopen, alleging without evidence that the former president was unaware of key actions taken in his name. To bolster the probe, Trump directed the White House to waive executive privilege for eight former Biden aides, including Bernal, Ron Klain, Anita Dunn, and Steve Ricchetti, allowing them to testify freely about their interactions with Biden. This unprecedented move has removed a significant legal barrier, intensifying pressure on witnesses like Bernal.

The probe has its roots in earlier Oversight Committee efforts, including a 2024 investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents. During that inquiry, the committee identified Bernal, Tomasini, and Williams as key figures involved in managing materials later found to contain classified information. The committee’s findings, combined with public concerns about Biden’s mental acuity—particularly after his debated performance in the 2024 election cycle—prompted Republicans to expand their focus to the autopen and cognitive health allegations. Last year, Comer subpoenaed the same trio of aides, but the Biden White House blocked their testimony, citing executive privilege. The current waiver has shifted the dynamics, leaving witnesses exposed.

Politically, the investigation reflects deep partisan divides. Republicans, emboldened by their control of the House, view the probe as a means to hold the Biden administration accountable and potentially invalidate executive actions taken during his term. They argue that if Biden was incapacitated, actions signed via autopen—ranging from environmental regulations to labor policies—could be legally challenged. Democrats, however, dismiss the investigation as a politically motivated witch hunt, pointing to Biden’s own statements denying any delegation of authority. “I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said in June 2025, rejecting claims that aides acted without his approval.

The investigation also intersects with broader debates about presidential fitness and oversight. Some Republicans, including Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), have raised constitutional questions, asking whether unelected aides effectively assumed presidential duties. “None of these people were elected by the American people, nor were they authorized by the Constitution to carry out the duties of the president,” Cornyn stated during a June 2025 Senate hearing. Such rhetoric underscores the stakes, as the probe could influence future legislation on executive authority and mental fitness standards for presidents.

Public reaction has been mixed, with some Americans viewing the investigation as a necessary check on power, while others see it as a distraction from pressing issues like economic recovery or national security. Social media posts reflect this divide, with some users praising Comer’s tenacity and others criticizing the probe as a partisan overreach. The controversy has also drawn comparisons to past investigations, such as the 1970s inquiries into President Richard Nixon’s mental state during Watergate, though Biden’s case lacks the same level of documented evidence.

Implications and Future Outlook

The subpoena of Anthony Bernal represents a critical juncture in the House Oversight Committee’s investigation, with significant implications for both politics and policy. If Bernal’s testimony reveals evidence of unauthorized autopen use or a concerted effort to conceal Biden’s health, it could embolden Republicans to challenge the validity of Biden-era executive actions. Legal battles over pardons, environmental regulations, or labor policies could ensue, potentially reshaping the legacy of Biden’s presidency. However, without concrete evidence, the probe risks being perceived as a partisan exercise, undermining its credibility.

For Bernal, the July 16 deposition poses personal and professional risks. As a longtime aide to Jill Biden, he wielded significant influence in the White House, often described as one of the most powerful unelected figures in the administration. His refusal to testify voluntarily has already drawn scrutiny, with Comer accusing him of “running scared” to avoid exposing the truth. If Bernal complies with the subpoena, his testimony could either corroborate or refute the committee’s allegations, shaping the investigation’s trajectory. Should he resist, he risks contempt of Congress charges, a rare but serious consequence.

The investigation also highlights the challenges of balancing transparency with executive prerogative. The autopen, a common tool in modern presidencies, streamlines administrative tasks but raises questions about accountability when used for high-stakes decisions. Historical examples, such as President Franklin Roosevelt’s use of an autopen during World War II, show that the device is not inherently problematic, but its application in Biden’s case has sparked debate due to concerns about his engagement. The committee’s focus on aides like Bernal and Tanden suggests an attempt to map the decision-making process, but the lack of direct evidence of wrongdoing complicates their case.

Looking ahead, the committee plans to hear from additional witnesses, including former White House physician Kevin O’Connor on July 9 and aides Annie Tomasini and Ashley Williams in August. These testimonies could provide further clarity or deepen the controversy, depending on what is revealed. The closed-door format of the depositions, favored by Comer for its substantive depth, ensures that the public will not have immediate access to the proceedings, though transcripts are expected to be released later. This approach allows for thorough questioning but may frustrate those seeking real-time transparency.

The probe’s outcome could influence public trust in government institutions. If Republicans uncover evidence of mismanagement, it may validate concerns about Biden’s leadership and prompt calls for reform. Conversely, if the investigation yields no significant findings, it could reinforce perceptions of partisan overreach, further eroding confidence in Congress. For now, the focus remains on Bernal, whose testimony could either illuminate or obscure the truth about the Biden White House’s inner workings.

Our Take

The House Oversight Committee’s subpoena of Anthony Bernal underscores the importance of transparency in governance, particularly when questions arise about a president’s capacity to lead. While the allegations of a cover-up and unauthorized autopen use are serious, the lack of concrete evidence thus far calls for a measured approach. The investigation, driven by legitimate concerns about accountability, must avoid devolving into a partisan spectacle. Bernal’s testimony, if forthcoming, could provide critical insights into the Biden administration’s decision-making processes, but the committee must prioritize facts over conjecture to maintain credibility. This probe serves as a reminder that the public deserves clarity on who holds power in the White House, especially in an era of heightened scrutiny over executive authority.