The White House has accused a Biden staffer of impersonating then–chief of staff Jeff Zients to approve the use of the autopen for pardons granted to members of the former president’s family, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The allegation has prompted renewed scrutiny over how pardons were processed during the Biden administration and whether proper authority was exercised in granting them.
According to a memo sent to current chief of staff Susie Wiles, the controversy centers on communications involving Rosa Po, an adviser to Zients. The document, obtained by the Washington Examiner, raised the possibility that Po acted under false pretenses when authorizing the autopen.
In one email exchange, Po wrote to Zients and deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed after a meeting about issuing pardons to Biden family members. She summarized the discussion and proposed sharing the notes with the Staff Secretary. Her message ended with an unusual plan to respond as if she were Zients himself.
Specifically, Po stated she would send a follow-up message “from” Zients approving autopen use. This remark immediately raised suspicion within the White House once the memo became public. The phrasing suggested she may have intended to imitate the chief of staff’s approval without his direct involvement.
The timeline of events only deepened the controversy. One minute after receiving Po’s message, Reed approved autopen use by signing “JZ.” Just two minutes later, Zients sent a nearly identical message echoing Reed’s approval.
The close timing of these responses has fueled speculation. In its internal assessment, the White House noted that it “seems possible” Po impersonated either Zients or Reed, or potentially both, without alerting the staff secretary. This observation left open significant questions about whether proper channels were bypassed during the process.
The White House did not provide a definitive conclusion in its memo but stressed the seriousness of the allegations. Such impersonation, if proven, would represent a breach of protocol at the highest levels of the administration. The Washington Examiner reported that Po was contacted for comment but did not respond.
As the investigation unfolds, much of the focus has shifted to how pardons were handled in practice during Biden’s presidency. Critics argue the incident illustrates troubling gaps in oversight, while allies caution against drawing conclusions before the inquiry is complete.
The pardons at the center of the issue included controversial decisions to absolve several of the president’s relatives. Among the most prominent was the pardon of Hunter Biden, who faced federal charges for a gun-related offense in Delaware and a tax-related offense in California.
Beyond Hunter, other family members were granted preemptive pardons, a move that sparked criticism from political opponents. Observers questioned whether these actions reflected conflicts of interest and if the president’s inner circle exerted undue influence over the legal process.
The autopen’s use in these cases further intensified public debate. The device, which allows a mechanical reproduction of a signature, has long been considered acceptable for routine administrative tasks. But its application to sensitive matters such as presidential pardons raised alarm about transparency and accountability.
The controversy also intersected with broader questions about Biden’s leadership. Some commentators pointed to the reliance on the autopen as evidence of diminished engagement, raising doubts about his decision-making capacity. These claims added fuel to ongoing partisan disputes over the president’s fitness for office.
However, supporters countered that the practice of using an autopen was not unprecedented. Past administrations, they noted, had employed the device in certain official contexts, though rarely in matters of such personal and political sensitivity.
Still, the overlap of autopen use, family pardons, and allegations of impersonation created a uniquely volatile mix. The revelation of the memo has only intensified calls for clarity about who authorized what, and whether the president himself was directly involved in each decision.
At present, key questions remain unresolved. Was Po acting independently when she suggested responding as Zients? Did Reed knowingly approve under the impression of proper authority, or was he misled? And how aware was the president of the sequence of approvals?
The Washington Examiner and its reporting have placed pressure on the White House to provide answers. Lawmakers from both parties are likely to seize on the issue in the coming weeks, given its implications for presidential authority and accountability.
Until further details emerge, the episode highlights the risks posed by blurred lines of communication at the top levels of government. The investigation into impersonation allegations is still ongoing, and the fallout from this unusual case continues to unfold.