Are there records listing specific pardons signed with an autopen and their dates?
Executive summary
There is no single public ledger that lists every presidential pardon signed with an autopen and its date; reporting shows isolated examples, congressional probes, and DOJ postings have revealed instances and raised questions, but available sources do not present a comprehensive, officially maintained list (not found in current reporting). The House Oversight report flagged “irregularities” in pardons and commutations involving autopen use [1], while news outlets and fact-checkers say autopen copies appear in published documents but legal scholars and precedent argue autopen use does not invalidate pardons [1] [2] [3].
1. What the public record actually contains — document copies, not a master list
Government websites and news organizations have published copies of pardons and other executive documents, and some of those digital copies have shown identical or autopen-like signatures; that reporting produced scrutiny and, in at least one instance, the Justice Department quietly replaced online files after commenters noted identical signatures on multiple pardons [4] [5]. Those replaced or original files amount to examples, not an official, consolidated register indicating which instruments were autopen-signed and when (not found in current reporting).
2. Congressional investigation created a high-profile catalogue of concerns — but not a definitive roster
The House Oversight Committee released a report titled “The Biden Autopen Presidency” that documents what it calls alarming deficiencies in record-keeping and identifies “irregularities” in pardons and commutations issued late in the Biden administration, including instances the committee says involved autopen use [6] [1]. That report alleges problems with documentation and custody of the President’s decision binder and recommends review, but it is an investigative product with political aims and does not equate to an authoritative, DOJ-maintained inventory of autopen-signed pardons [1].
3. News coverage caught and corrected discrete signature anomalies
Major outlets — including PBS (AP reporting), Fortune and others — documented that several Trump-era pardons posted online initially bore identical signatures, which forensic document experts confirmed to AP; the Administration later replaced those online copies, calling the issue a “technical error” [4] [5]. Those episodes illustrate how published copies can reveal signature patterns, but they also show how online repositories can change, complicating any attempt to create a stable historical list from web postings alone [4].
4. Legal context: precedent says autopen signatures don’t void pardons
A 2005 Justice Department determination and multiple legal experts cited by outlets and fact-checkers conclude that autopen signing of official documents is lawful and does not, by itself, render pardons invalid. Snopes and PolitiFact summarize that precedent and constitutional interpretation: the Constitution vests pardon power in the President and does not require a handwritten signature, and past administrations have used autopens [2] [7] [3]. This legal consensus matters because even if a document bears an autopen signature, courts and scholars say that fact alone is not dispositive of validity [2] [3].
5. Competing narratives and political motives to consider
Republican investigators and sympathetic outlets have pushed the narrative that autopen use shows lack of presidential control or worse, and the Oversight report frames autopen use as part of broader allegations about decision-making at the White House [1] [8]. Democrats and some legal scholars call those claims politically motivated or legally weak; Stanford Law’s Bernadette Meyler and mainstream fact-checkers argue the autopen question does not carry constitutional weight to void pardons [3] [7]. Readers should treat congressional materials as both investigative findings and partisan products [1] [8].
6. Practical steps to pursue the record if you want one
Available reporting shows two practical paths: comb archived DOJ and Federal Register postings and compare published images to spot identical signatures — an imperfect, time-consuming approach that yields examples but not legal proof [4] [2]; use the Oversight Committee’s materials as a starting inventory of cases it flagged, keeping in mind the committee’s political purpose and the document’s limitations [1]. There is no single, authoritative public list in the sources provided (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: Sources here span news reporting, committee material and fact-checks; the Oversight report is investigatory and political in intent [1]. The sources do not include an official DOJ-maintained catalogue labeling which pardons were autopen-signed by date; therefore I cannot produce such a list from current reporting (not found in current reporting).