How does autopen use by Biden compare to previous presidents' autopen use?
Executive summary
Autopen use by Joe Biden became a political flashpoint in 2025 after House Republicans’ report and Trump’s public denunciations alleging widespread autopen signing of executive actions; the White House later acknowledged “the vast majority” of Biden’s executive actions were autopen-signed, while legal precedent and prior presidencies show autopens have long been used by presidents including Jefferson, Kennedy and Obama [1] [2] [3] [4]. Disagreement is sharp: Republican investigators and the Trump White House frame autopen use as evidence of improper delegation, while legal commentators and past Justice Department guidance treat autopen signatures as constitutionally permissible when authorized by the president [5] [6] [7].
1. A device with a long presidential pedigree
Autopens and signature-duplicating devices date back centuries and have been used by multiple presidents; Thomas Jefferson used an early polygraph-style machine, Gerald Ford openly acknowledged using an autopen, John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama have used automated signature devices for substantive documents, and the Department of Justice in 2005 concluded the president need not personally affix a signature for a bill to become law when he has authorized a proxy such as an autopen [3] [8] [4] [6].
2. What’s new with Biden: scale and scrutiny
What transformed routine autopen usage into a controversy was the scale alleged by Republican investigators and the Oversight Project, and the White House statement that the “vast majority” of Biden’s executive actions were autopen-signed, which Republican leaders and President Trump seized on as proof of systemic delegation and concealed incapacity [2] [1] [5]. Critics highlight pardons and commutations signed via autopen as especially sensitive because clemency is an exclusive Article II power, producing heated congressional probes and public claims that many actions lacked contemporaneous, president-signed documentation [2] [7].
3. Legal context: constitution, precedent, and limits
Constitutional text and prior legal analyses draw distinctions. For legislation, Article I requires a president’s approval and signature but the Justice Department in 2005 advised that a president may direct a subordinate to affix his signature, including by autopen; for pardons, Article II vests the pardon power in the president and does not expressly require a handwritten signature, and multiple legal scholars told fact-checkers there is no clear constitutional rule forbidding autopen use for clemency [6] [7] [3].
4. Competing narratives and political utility
Republican reports and the Trump administration framed Biden’s autopen use as proof of cognitive decline and administrative usurpation, culminating in President Trump’s public pronouncements that he would “terminate” autopen-signed Biden documents and threaten perjury charges—claims amplified by sympathetic media and House committee releases [5] [9] [10]. Opposing voices, including legal experts and some news outlets, emphasize precedent, question the legal effect of autopen signatures on the validity of acts, and note past presidents’ use of the same tool, arguing the dispute is political more than juridical [6] [7] [4].
5. Information gaps and evidentiary limits
Available sources document assertions, investigations, and a White House memorandum alleging extensive autopen use, but they do not provide a comprehensive, independently verified inventory showing which specific executive orders, pardons, or other instruments were autopen-signed and whether the president personally authorized each instance in real time; nor do they include court rulings invalidating major actions solely because a signature was produced by autopen [1] [2] [6]. Where sources offer counts—such as the Oversight Project’s claims or Trump’s “92%” figure—those figures are disputed and not independently confirmed in the provided reporting [9] [10].
6. Historical comparison: practice vs. political reaction
Historically, presidents have used autopens for convenience or to meet deadlines while traveling; such uses were seldom politicized at the scale seen in 2025 [3] [8]. What distinguishes Biden’s case in coverage here is the combination of an aggressive congressional report, a White House assertion about the “vast majority” of autopen use, and a successor president publicly pledging to nullify autopen-signed acts—an escalation above routine administrative practice [1] [2] [9].
7. Bottom line for readers
Autopens are long-established in presidential practice and legally defensible in many contexts when used with the president’s authorization, but the Biden controversy centers on allegations of scale and lack of contemporaneous documentation that former oversight committees and the incoming administration argue undermined presidential accountability; current reporting records sharp partisan disagreement, substantive claims by Republican investigators, and legal analyses that caution against assuming invalidity based solely on mechanical signature replication [3] [2] [6]. Available sources do not mention any final court determination or consensus resolution of whether the specific autopen-signed actions at issue were legally invalid (not found in current reporting).