How does trump's autopen use compare to other presidents' usage?

1. Historical context: autopens are not new and presidents from both parties have used them

The autopen dates back centuries in concept (patented in the early 1800s) and has been used by multiple presidents for routine tasks such as correspondence, checks and, in some cases, formal documents—historical reporting credits presidents including Truman, Ford and Barack Obama with autopen use—so the device itself is an ordinary White House tool rather than a novel innovation of any single administration ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Legal baseline: Justice Department precedent and scholars say autopen use is lawful

A 2005 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion concluded that the president need not personally affix a signature for a bill to be “signed” within Article I, and that directing a subordinate (or using an autopen) to place the president’s signature can suffice—legal experts and fact-checkers have repeatedly cited that precedent to say autopen use is lawful and does not by itself negate dispositive acts like signing legislation or pardons ^{[6] [7] [2]}.

3. How Trump’s admitted usage compares to other presidents’ practices

Like predecessors, Trump has acknowledged using an autopen, and has described his own use as limited to “very unimportant papers,” a line similar to how other presidents historically limited autopen use to high-volume or logistical tasks rather than core decision-making—so on the narrow metric of whether he used one, Trump’s behavior mirrors past practice ^{[1] [8]}.

4. How Trump’s rhetoric and policy actions depart from prior norms

Where Trump differs is rhetorical and remedial: he has publicly declared that documents signed by Joe Biden via autopen are “terminated” and “of no legal effect,” opened an investigation into Biden’s autopen use, and directed political staff and media to amplify that claim—moves that experts say lack clear legal footing and that no prior president has attempted merely by proclamation to nullify a predecessor’s acts on the basis of autopen use ^{[3] [2] [9]}.

5. Legal and scholarly pushback: pardons, rescission, and constitutional limits

Constitutional scholars and legal commentators point out multiple obstacles to Trump’s position: the Constitution does not require pardons to be in writing, historical OLC guidance accepts autopen signatures as valid, and courts and scholars say a later president generally cannot unilaterally void a predecessor’s pardons or orders simply by asserting they were autopen-signed—FactCheck.org and law professors called Trump’s claims that autopen use makes pardons “void” baseless ^{[7] [2] [10] [3]}.

6. Political motives, media framing and competing agendas

The assault on autopen use has been amplified selectively: conservative outlets and Trump allies frame autopen use as a symptom of alleged cognitive decline or abuse, while mainstream outlets and fact-checkers emphasize legal precedent and the bipartisan history of autopen use; some legal conservatives (e.g., John Yoo) treated parts of Trump’s campaign as performative, illustrating how coverage often reflects ideological goals as much as technical legal argument ^{[6] [9] [11]}.

7. Bottom line: usage similar, weaponization unprecedented

In plain terms, Trump’s personal autopen use is not exceptional compared with past presidents—autopens have been used across administrations and have enjoyed Justice Department backing—but Trump’s weaponization of autopen claims to invalidate a predecessor’s acts and to drive political investigations is historically novel and, according to mainstream legal opinion, unlikely to stand up to legal scrutiny ^{[5] [6] [7] [3]}.