Which presidents have used autopen for official signatures and in what circumstances?
Executive summary
Several U.S. presidents have used autopen devices to reproduce signatures for official documents, especially when traveling or to meet deadlines; notable examples cited in reporting include Thomas Jefferson (early signature-duplicating tools), John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Gerald Ford, Barack Obama and Joe Biden (used while overseas or traveling) [1] [2] [3]. Use has long precedent and DOJ previously found presidential autopen use “consistent with” Article I, Section 7 language [4] [1].
1. A tool with deep roots: from Jefferson’s “polygraph” to the modern autopen
The technology predates the 20th century: Thomas Jefferson used an early signature-duplicating instrument (a “polygraph”/pantograph) and the modern autopen evolved from that lineage; historians say Jefferson was the first president to use such duplication devices extensively [4] [1]. That continuity frames current debates: the device has been part of presidential workflow for centuries rather than a novel or exceptional innovation [1].
2. Presidents who have relied on autopens—and why
Published accounts and institutional histories identify several presidents who used autopen or similar signature machines: John F. Kennedy (reported heavy dependence), Lyndon B. Johnson (publicized his use), Gerald Ford (open about it), Barack Obama (used it to sign the Patriot Act and an appropriations bill while overseas in 2011, and again in 2013 from Hawaii) and Joe Biden (used while traveling to avoid funding lapses) [1] [2] [5]. Reporters note presidents typically use autopens to sign routine or time-sensitive documents when physically absent from Washington [2] [1].
3. The legal and administrative baseline: autopen signatures have been treated as valid
Government reporting and past DOJ review indicate the autopen’s use by presidents has been treated as legally permissible. One Department of Justice response concluded autopen use is consistent with the constitutional wording about bills becoming law, and institutions like the White House have used the device for decades [4] [1]. News outlets emphasize longstanding precedent: multiple administrations have used autopens for legislation and appropriations when presidents were out of the country [2] [1].
4. High-profile, recent controversies: Biden, Republican oversight, and Trump’s claims
From 2024–2025 the autopen became politically charged. House Oversight Republicans released a report alleging widespread autopen use under President Biden and arguing documents signed without explicit written authorization should be voided; Democrats and Biden’s team denied a conspiracy, and Biden said he made the decisions himself [6] [3] [5]. Former President Trump repeatedly attacked Biden over autopen use—declaring he would cancel Biden’s autopen-signed executive orders and calling pardons void—claims that multiple outlets described as baseless or legally unclear [7] [8] [9] [5].
5. Disagreement in public narratives: administrative practice vs. political framing
Reporting shows two competing frames. Institutional and historical sources treat the autopen as a practical administrative device used by many presidents for valid official acts [1] [4]. Political actors (notably some Republicans in 2025) framed autopen use as evidence of presidential incapacity or malfeasance—assertions critics in the press called lacking concrete evidence and legally dubious [3] [7] [8]. Sources document both the long-standing practice and the recent partisan escalation over its implications [1] [6].
6. What sources do and do not show about scope and consequences
Contemporary reporting confirms that presidents including Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Obama and Biden used autopens for legislation and other documents, and that the device has legal precedent [2] [1] [4]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, public accounting of every document signed by autopen in recent administrations nor do they show definitive legal rulings nullifying autopen-signed orders—coverage discusses allegations, investigations, and political claims rather than court-validated invalidations [5] [9] [6].
7. Why the autopen debate matters beyond signatures
The controversy is symbolic: it raises questions about presidential presence, delegation, transparency and how the executive branch documents assent. Critics use autopen facts to question fitness for office; defenders point to efficiency and precedent and to DOJ and historical treatments that validate such signatures [3] [4] [1]. Readers should weigh long administrative practice against recent partisan assertions and note that major outlets characterize some political claims about autopen use as unproven or legally unsettled [7] [8] [9].
Limitations: this summary relies only on the provided reporting and oversight documents; it does not include other archival or legal materials that may list every autopen instance, nor court decisions beyond articles cited here [4] [1] [6].