| Published May 28, 2025
In a recent interview on Fox News’ “Primetime,” David Sacks, President Trump’s appointed AI and cryptocurrency czar, alleged that Senator Elizabeth Warren was effectively controlling President Biden’s autopen during his administration. Sacks claimed that Warren used the autopen to advance policies detrimental to the cryptocurrency industry, attributing this to her “pathological hatred” of crypto. He argued that such actions were driving innovation offshore and hindering the United States’ leadership in the financial technology sector.
President Trump echoed these sentiments on Truth Social, labeling the autopen’s use as a usurpation of presidential power and one of the biggest scandals in American history. He suggested that decisions made via the autopen did not reflect the will of a “sound mind” President Biden, implying undue influence from figures like Warren.
Sacks’s claim appears to be based on his interpretation of policy decisions made during the Biden administration that he believes were influenced by Warren’s anti-crypto stance. He did not provide concrete evidence to support the assertion that Warren directly controlled the autopen. The term “autopen” refers to a device that can replicate a person’s signature, often used for signing official documents. Sacks’s use of the term in this context seems to be metaphorical, suggesting that Warren had significant influence over the administration’s decisions, rather than literally operating the autopen device.
These assertions have intensified debates over the use of autopen technology in the White House and raised questions about who holds sway over executive decisions. Critics argue that such claims are politically motivated and lack substantive evidence, while supporters see them as highlighting concerns about transparency and accountability in the executive branch.
The implication that Senator Elizabeth Warren was effectively controlling President Biden’s autopen—meaning she had significant sway over executive decisions—raises several red flags:
1. Shadow Governance:
If true, it suggests unelected or non-executive officials are making critical policy decisions, undermining the role of the president. Those who prioritize constitutional integrity and executive accountability would see this as a breach of democratic norms.
2. War on Crypto:
Many free-market advocates view cryptocurrency as a decentralized safeguard against government overreach. Warren’s known opposition to crypto, if guiding Biden’s policy, suggests continued regulatory hostility that could push innovation overseas.
3. Mental Fitness and Transparency:
The idea that Biden isn’t fully in charge reinforces longstanding concerns about the administration’s transparency and the president’s decision-making capacity. For many, this raises alarms about who’s really calling the shots.
4. Weaponization of Policy:
From this perspective, Warren’s alleged influence reflects a broader pattern of elite-driven policy, where decisions are made by ideologues rather than by elected officials accountable to the public.
Overall Takeaway:
There’s growing concern among pro-constitution, pro-crypto, and transparency-minded voices that the Biden administration may be heavily influenced—if not quietly directed—by ideological actors like Senator Elizabeth Warren. This raises alarms about executive accountability, overregulation of innovation (like cryptocurrency), and the legitimacy of policy decisions being made without direct presidential oversight.
SOURCES: THE GATEWAY PUNDIT – President Trump’s Crypto Czar, David Sacks, Names the Person Allegedly Behind Biden’s Autopen: “It Wasn’t Biden — Elizabeth Warren Controlled the Autopen!”
WORLD NET DAILY – ‘SHHH DON’T TELL JOE!’ Infamous Democrat named on national TV as controlling Biden’s autopen
