As the autopen controversy intensifies—centering on whether former President Joe Biden’s executive actions were valid—attention is now shifting toward former Vice President Kamala Harris. House Republicans, spearheaded by Rep. Jim Jordan, have hinted that she could be called before Congress. This exposé unpacks the evolving inquiry, Jordan’s public response, and what it might mean for Harris and the wider political landscape.

What Is the Autopen Controversy About?

The autopen—an automated mechanical device that replicates a person’s signature—has a decades-long history of use among U.S. presidents. Its legality for signing official documents, including bills, has been affirmed in the past. For example, a 2005 Justice Department opinion under the George W. Bush administration authorized its use. Presidents Obama and Biden have both employed autopen for nondisciplinary cases, like signing into law extensions and routine correspondence

The controversy erupted when former President Donald Trump began alleging that Biden’s aides misused the autopen to execute pivotal actions—such as pardons, judge appointments, and executive orders—without Biden’s direct involvement. He claims this casts doubt on their legitimacy and suggests a cover-up of Biden’s mental decline

Congressional Inquiry Escalates

In June 2025, Trump issued a presidential memorandum directing a formal investigation into whether Biden’s staff abused the autopen to conceal his cognitive decline and unlawfully wield presidential power The probe is being carried out jointly by the White House Counsel’s Office and the Department of Justice, with a focus on thousands of documents from the National Archives—possibly spanning hundreds of thousands or even a million records

Republican lawmakers, along with Trump, have decried the alleged misuse as one of the most consequential scandals in American history. Trump even went so far as to declare certain pardons “VOID” if signed via autopen, although legal experts have clarified that such claims lack constitutional or judicial basis

Kamala Harris Enters the Spotlight

Amid mounting investigations, Rep. James Comer (R‑KY), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, suggested that Kamala Harris’s testimony could be “helpful” to the probe. While no formal subpoena has been issued, Comer indicated the possibility is high. He warned Harris that her future political trajectory could be impacted if questions surrounding Biden’s control of the administration remain unresolved

Harris has not publicly commented on the possibility of being called before the committee at this time.

Context: Former Aides, Fifth Amendment, and Mounting Pressure

To date, eight out of eleven high-level Biden aides have been interviewed by the Oversight Committee. Some, like Anthony Bernal and Annie Tomasini, have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights when asked to testify—an action their attorney, Jonathan Su, defended as legally permissible and not indicative of wrongdoing

Meanwhile, Biden—now battling aggressive prostate cancer—continues to deny the underlying allegations. He maintains that he personally made all key decisions, even if the autopen was used for signatures. He calls the investigation politically motivated, aimed at distracting from the Republican legislative agenda

What Does Jim Jordan Say—And What’s His Role?

As a prominent member of House Republicans and a vocal supporter of the autopen probe, Rep. Jim Jordan has echoed Comer’s position. Though specific quotes from Jordan on Harris have not been widely reported, his alignment with the Oversight Committee signals openness to exploring whether Harris had operational knowledge of, or involvement in, the autopen’s use.

Jordan’s broader stance suggests that calling Harris could serve two political functions:

Documentation of Continuity: As vice president, she may have insight into delegation of authority.

Political Leverage: Her summons could intensify scrutiny and pressure across party lines.

Speculation and Political Implications

If Harris is indeed subpoenaed, several outcomes are possible:

Voluntary Testimony: She may choose to testify, aiming to clarify her role and distance herself from alleged mismanagement.

Legal Rebuke: Harris could refuse, sparking rhetoric around obstruction and political targeting.

Strategic Optics: Democrats may argue the move is retaliatory, designed to derail her rising prominence.

From a political strategy standpoint, Republicans may view her appearance as a litmus test for broader executive branch accountability.

Why This Matters

The autopen controversy is not solely about mechanical signatures—it’s a proxy for broader questions:

Who wielded power in the waning years of Biden’s term?

Were executive decisions properly authorized?

Can absolution be granted on the basis of declining cognition?

By including Harris in this probe, investigators may reveal structural patterns of delegation—not just isolated incidents—and signal to future administrations the importance of transparency in presidential operations.

Conclusion

Is Kamala Harris next in the autopen probe? Rep. Jim Jordan, through his alignment with Comer, has left the door open. While not yet formalized, Harris’s potential subpoena underscores the gravity of this scrutiny—not just for Biden-era governance, but for future norms of power transfer, presidential capacity, and executive delegation.

If you’d like more analysis on how this could affect the 2028 election or executive privilege debates, let me know—I’d be happy to dig deeper.