Have other presidents used an autopen and how does that compare to Trump's 2020 use?
Executive summary
Autopens have been used by U.S. presidents for centuries — from Jefferson’s early polygraph to modern autopen use by presidents including John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Barack Obama and Donald Trump [1] [2] [3]. The Justice Department concluded in 2005 that a president need not personally affix a signature for a bill to become law and can direct a subordinate to use an autopen [4] [2].
1. A long presidential history: from Jefferson’s polygraph to the modern autopen
The technology that reproduces signatures dates back to the polygraph device Thomas Jefferson bought; it evolved into the autopen and has been part of White House practice for decades, with presidents photographed and reported using it publicly [1] [4]. Lyndon B. Johnson famously allowed a White House autopen to be photographed and presidents since Kennedy have relied on the device for high-volume signing tasks [1].
2. How administrations have described and used the tool
Administrations and commentators describe the autopen as a mechanical arm that holds a pen and reproduces a stored signature template; it’s been used for routine correspondence, bulk signings and occasional time-sensitive statutory acts when a president is traveling [1] [3]. Barack Obama used an autopen in 2011 to sign an extension of the Patriot Act while overseas because of an imminent deadline [3].
3. Legal posture: DOJ guidance that autopen signatures can be valid
The Department of Justice issued guidance in 2005 stating the president “need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature” and may direct a subordinate to affix the signature, “for example by autopen,” a legal position repeatedly cited in reporting [4] [2]. That guidance underpins mainstream media and legal commentary noting autopen use does not, by itself, nullify laws or pardons [5] [6].
4. The 2024–25 controversy: Trump’s claim and political response
Former and current President Trump has repeatedly attacked Joe Biden’s autopen use, calling actions signed with it “void” and promising to cancel those documents, while claiming a very high percentage were autopen-signed (about 92%), and threatening perjury charges if Biden disputes that characterization [7] [8] [9]. Trump himself has acknowledged limited autopen use in the past and has said he reserves it for “very unimportant papers,” though he too has been reported to use autopens [2] [10].
5. Competing narratives and the politics behind them
Republican investigators and Trump allies frame Biden’s autopen use as symptomatic of delegation, secrecy or cognitive decline and have pushed legislative and investigatory responses calling some autopen-signed actions improper [11] [12]. Mainstream news outlets and legal analysts point to longstanding precedent and DOJ guidance to argue autopen use is lawful and common, and that autopen use alone does not prove a president did not authorize actions [2] [5] [3].
6. Practical differences between past uses and the Biden episode — what sources say
Sources document many past presidents using autopens for mail, bulk signings and even one-off laws when physically absent [1] [3]. Reporting about Biden focuses on scale and timing — committees and oversight groups say much of his signature-bearing paperwork shows autopen use and raise questions about contemporaneous documentation and staff approvals [3] [12]. By contrast, the most legally consequential prior autopen example widely cited is Obama’s time-sensitive law-signing while abroad, which was publicly acknowledged and litigated in comment rather than law [3].
7. What’s provable in current reporting and what isn’t
Available sources establish long presidential autopen use and DOJ guidance supporting its legal validity [1] [4]. Available sources do not mention a court decision voiding autopen-signed laws or pardons; they report debate, committee findings and competing political claims about whether staff sometimes used the autopen without adequate contemporaneous documentation [5] [12]. Claims that autopen use alone renders an action invalid are presented as assertions by political actors, contested by legal commentary and prior DOJ views [6] [5].
8. The takeaway for readers
Autopen use is an established White House practice with legal cover from a 2005 DOJ stance; past presidents including Obama used it for binding, time-sensitive acts [4] [3]. The current dispute centers less on the machine’s existence than on the scale, documentation and politics of how it was used under Biden — and on partisan efforts to treat those facts as a basis to nullify prior actions, a position many legal analysts and prior DOJ guidance do not support [12] [5] [6].