Fact check: What is the protocol for using an auto pen for presidential signatures?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is no single, formally codified protocol for presidential autopen use, but several key practices and legal frameworks have emerged:

Legal Framework:

• The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a 2005 memo concluding that "the President [need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature] to a bill to sign it within the meaning of Article I, Section 7" ^[1]
• The Justice Department has repeatedly examined the constitutionality of using autopens for legislation and concluded that it does not affect the validity of presidential actions ^{[2] [3]}

Historical Usage Patterns:

• Autopen use has been commonplace among presidents for decades, with historical precedents including Thomas Jefferson, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama ^{[2] [4]}
• President Johnson even allowed the autopen to be photographed in the White House, indicating transparency about its use ^[4]

Authorization Process:

• Presidential approval is required before autopen use - as clarified by Neera Tanden's attorney, "the autopen was used … only after the President personally approved the decision" ^[5]
• Authorized staff members can direct autopen signatures once presidential approval is obtained ^[5]

Typical Applications:

• Presidents typically use autopens for routine correspondence and "very unimportant papers" as acknowledged by Donald Trump himself ^[6]
• The device is used for both legislation and routine documents like responses to letters ^{[6] [4]}

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements:

Political Controversy Context:

• Donald Trump has ordered investigations into Biden's autopen use, calling it potentially the "biggest scandal in American history," while others view it as a "distraction" ^[3]
• Trump himself acknowledged using the autopen in office, creating a potential contradiction in his criticism of Biden's use ^[6]

Institutional Perspective:

• The practice serves legitimate administrative efficiency purposes - presidents receive thousands of documents requiring signatures, making autopens practically necessary for routine matters ^[4]
• The constitutional focus is on presidential decision-making, not the mechanical act of signing - what matters legally is the president's approval of the action, not how the signature is physically applied ^[2]

Transparency Issues:

• There appears to be inconsistent awareness within administrations about who provides final authorization for autopen use, as evidenced by Neera Tanden's initial uncertainty ^[5]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual, seeking information about protocols rather than making claims. However, the context surrounding autopen discussions reveals significant political bias:

Selective Criticism:

• Political figures who have used autopens themselves are now criticizing others for the same practice ^{[6] [3]}
• The characterization of routine administrative tools as potential "scandals" appears to be politically motivated rather than based on legal or constitutional concerns ^[3]

Misrepresentation of Legal Status:

• Claims that autopen use is problematic ignore decades of Justice Department legal opinions confirming its constitutionality ^{[1] [2]}
• The focus on mechanical signature methods obscures the actual legal standard, which centers on presidential decision-making rather than physical signature application ^[2]

The question itself does not contain misinformation, but the broader political discourse around autopens appears to involve selective outrage and mischaracterization of established, legally-vetted administrative practices.