Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Has any other US president used an auto pen for signing documents?
Executive Summary
Multiple presidencies have used an autopen or similar mechanical signing device; this practice dates back to Harry Truman and has been employed by presidents including Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and, more recently, Joe Biden, for routine correspondence and, in at least one widely reported case, legislation or public documents. The use of an autopen is long-standing and legally defended, but its application to certain instruments—especially pardons and other exclusive presidential acts—has sparked political dispute and legal scrutiny in contemporary coverage [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why the autopen story keeps resurfacing — a short history that matters
The autopen and its antecedents have a documented lineage in the presidential office, beginning with mechanical copying devices such as Thomas Jefferson’s polygraph and advancing to a robotized pen first used by Harry Truman; these devices were adopted to handle high-volume routine correspondence and ceremonial signings, not to substitute for intimate acts of presidential decision making [2] [1]. Understanding that continuity matters because contemporary controversies rest not on novelty but on where and how the device is used. Historical reports note that the technology evolved into the modern autopen and was later deployed under presidents across the political spectrum for administrative efficiency [2] [1].
2. Who has used it — examples from multiple administrations
Publicly reported instances list several presidents who used mechanized signature devices: Harry Truman is credited as the first presidential user, Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy are cited in modern summaries, Barack Obama used an autopen in at least one prominent instance involving legislation, and George W. Bush’s use helped shape legal precedent for delegating certain signature functions [1] [3] [4]. This cross-party usage underscores that autopen practice is institutional rather than partisan, although administrations differ in what they disclose and how they justify particular signings [1] [3].
3. Legal and ethical boundary lines — where debates start
Legal analysis and reporting have centered on whether an autopen signature satisfies statutory or constitutional requirements, especially for uniquely presidential acts like signing bills into law or issuing pardons. Historical coverage shows that some uses—like the fiscal matters or routine correspondence Obama handled with an autopen—have been accepted or defended by White Houses, while other uses have prompted scrutiny because they touch on non-delegable executive powers [1] [4]. The core tension is between administrative practicality and the legal significance of a signature, a tension that surfaces whenever an autopen is used for a document tied to individual presidential authority [4].
4. Recent political flare-ups — why Biden’s case got attention
Recent reporting and political commentary have focused on President Biden’s alleged autopen use for pardons, reigniting discussion about precedent and propriety. Critics—most prominently political opponents—have framed such uses as improper or emblematic of delegation, while defenders point to historical precedent and prior presidents’ practices; coverage notes that the practice is not new but political context makes it combustible [5] [6] [3]. The controversy therefore mixes factual precedent with partisan framing, and available analyses show both factual continuity and intensified public scrutiny in 2025 [5] [6].
5. How contemporary reporting frames precedent versus politics
Contemporary articles synthesize historical usage with immediate controversy, often citing prior presidents and the administrative rationale for autopen use while highlighting objections when the device is used for high-stakes acts. Journalistic accounts that trace the device from Jeffersonian copying machines to Truman and beyond serve to contextualize current controversies as part of an institutional practice, yet these same accounts repeatedly emphasize that each new instance invites legal and political questions about limits and transparency [2] [1] [3].
6. Gaps, omissions and things to watch in the public record
Existing reporting provides named historical examples but often lacks exhaustive disclosure of every autopen use across administrations, leaving space for partisan claims and incomplete public timelines. Key omissions include detailed White House records on decision protocols, legal memos justifying specific autopen uses, and transparent documentation of which documents were autopen-signed versus hand-signed, matters that shape whether the practice will remain treated as routine or become the subject of litigation and policy reform [4] [3].
7. Bottom line — precedent exists but controversy persists
The factual record assembled from historical and contemporary reporting confirms that other U.S. presidents have used autopen-style devices, with uses spanning routine correspondence, ceremonial signings, and at least one contentious legislative or administrative instance; yet modern disputes, particularly when autopens are used for pardons or singular constitutional acts, expose unresolved legal and normative boundaries and highlight the need for clearer transparency from administrations and possible legal clarification [1] [4] [5].