How did the frequency and context of Trump's 2020 autopen use compare to past administrations?
Executive summary
President Trump has publicly criticized President Biden’s use of an autopen and announced plans to void documents he says were signed with it, claiming roughly “92%” were autopen-signed (reported in CNN, Fox and NBC summaries) and saying he himself used an autopen only for “very unimportant papers” [1] [2] [3]. Available reporting makes clear that autopens have been used by presidents for decades and that the Justice Department’s 2005 Office of Legal Counsel concluded a president need not physically sign a bill for it to be valid — a legal view cited across multiple outlets [1] [4] [3].
1. How frequently presidents have used autopens — the long view
Autopens are longstanding White House tools: reporting notes presidents from Thomas Jefferson through modern occupants have used mechanical signature devices for routine or ceremonial matters, and the federal Office of Legal Counsel in 2005 advised a president need not personally affix a signature for a bill to be “signed” [4] [1]. Coverage emphasizes that autopen use is common for high-volume, low-risk items such as letters and to avoid lapses while the president is traveling — a practice cited when describing Biden signing a funding extension while on the West Coast [5] [6].
2. Trump’s admission: limited past use, by his account
Trump has acknowledged using an autopen himself but repeatedly said it was reserved for “very unimportant papers” like letters to citizens rather than formal acts such as pardons or executive orders; multiple outlets quoted him making that distinction as he criticized Biden’s alleged autopen use for significant actions [3] [6] [7]. Reporting also documents at least one Justice Department technical correction involving apparently identical copies of Trump signatures on pardons posted online, which was later attributed to a “technical error” and corrected [8].
3. Biden’s autopen use: frequency claimed, facts unclear
News stories show Trump and some Republicans have characterized a large share of Biden’s signatures as autopen-signed — Trump cited a 92% figure in social posts reported by several outlets — but reporting consistently notes it is unclear exactly how many executive orders or pardons were signed using an autopen and that the House Republican report criticized Biden’s use without producing definitive evidence of improper conspiracy [2] [3] [5]. CNN and CBS explicitly say it’s unclear how many of Biden’s 162 executive orders were autopen-signed [3] [1].
4. Legal context and competing interpretations
The Department of Justice’s 2005 Office of Legal Counsel concluded a president need not personally affix a signature for a bill to be valid; outlets cite that ruling when explaining the baseline legality of autopen use for official acts [1] [4]. Legal historians quoted in reporting stress that the key to the validity of a pardon is the president’s intent, not the manner of the signature [8]. Conservative commentators noted presidents may revoke predecessor executive orders regardless of signature method, while opponents frame autopen use as evidence of improper delegation or concealed incapacity [8] [9].
5. Political framing and evidence gaps
Coverage shows the autopen debate has become a partisan weapon: Republicans use alleged autopen reliance to argue Biden’s staff “usurped” power or to question his fitness, while Democrats and some news outlets call those claims distracting and note a lack of proof that autopen use concealed decisions or was unauthorized [5] [3]. Multiple sources point out the absence of clear documentary proof tying autopen signatures to conspiratorial bypassing of a president’s authority [3] [5].
6. Practical comparison: Trump vs. past administrations in context
Available sources document that Trump has used an autopen for routine correspondence and has criticized others’ use for formal acts; they also show that other presidents have relied on autopens over decades and that the legal view allowing autopen use is bipartisan and longstanding [6] [4] [1]. Reporting does not provide a comprehensive, quantified tally that directly compares the frequency of autopen use across administrations; therefore, a precise numerical comparison is not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. What to watch next — accountability and documentation
News outlets flag two likely paths to resolving dispute: release of documentary tracking showing when and who authorized autopen signatures, and any formal legal findings or investigations by the Justice Department or congressional committees; reporting notes Republicans have pursued filings and internal reports but that those documents so far haven’t produced clear evidence of illegal conduct [9] [3] [5]. If such records are produced, they will directly address the current evidentiary gaps identified in multiple reports [3] [5].
Limitations: reporting cited here draws from news accounts and summaries; none of the provided sources contain a comprehensive dataset enumerating autopen uses by president, so definitive frequency comparisons across administrations are not available in current reporting (not found in current reporting).