Which recent U.S. presidents have publicly acknowledged using an autopen and for what types of documents?
Executive summary
Recent reporting and committee work show multiple modern presidents have acknowledged or were documented using autopens for routine signatures: Barack Obama used an autopen to sign at least one law while abroad in 2011 [1], and White House practice of autopen use dates back decades including Truman, Johnson and others [1]. In 2024–25 the issue became politically charged: President Joe Biden’s autopen use was the subject of a GOP Oversight investigation and a 2025 committee report alleging autopen-signed pardons and executive actions, while President Donald Trump publicly asserted autopen use and argued it voided some Biden actions — a claim legal experts and fact-checkers called unsupported by available evidence [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What presidents have admitted or been documented using an autopen — the historical picture
Autopen use in the White House is longstanding and bipartisan. Historical accounts and museum/heritage pieces trace autopen-like machines back to Thomas Jefferson and note Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford among presidents associated with mechanical signature devices [1]. Barack Obama is widely reported as the first president to publicly use an autopen to sign legislation from abroad in 2011 — examples cited include extensions of the Patriot Act and other bills while he was traveling [1]. Contemporary reporting also documents that autopens are used for everything from constituent mail to signing legislation in time-sensitive situations [1] [5].
2. Biden’s autopen: what the Oversight Committee found and what it claims
The House Oversight Committee, led by Republicans, released a report in October 2025 alleging that aides used an autopen and that some executive actions signed that way should be considered “void,” framing the matter as evidence of President Joe Biden’s purported cognitive decline and a White House “cover-up” [2] [6]. The committee’s public materials and its October 28, 2025 release directly state the committee “deems void President Biden’s executive actions that were signed using the Autopen” and called for Department of Justice review and other accountability measures [2] [3].
3. Trump’s public statements and the political escalation
After returning to office, President Donald Trump publicly raised autopen concerns repeatedly in early 2025 and later, asserting that pardons and other documents signed via autopen were void and sometimes linking the issue to investigations and proclamations [7] [8]. Reporting notes Trump publicly admitted he “sometimes uses an autopen” himself while also challenging Biden-era autopen signatures [7]. This turned a procedural administrative tool into a partisan political issue [8].
4. Legal and expert pushback: what the sources say about validity
Multiple legal experts, historical DoJ memoranda, and independent fact-checking cited in the reporting make clear autopen use has been considered lawful for decades and that a president may direct a signature be affixed by others in certain circumstances; the federal legal landscape does not straightforwardly support the idea that autopen use automatically nullifies pardons or executive acts [9] [4] [5]. FactCheck.org concluded Trump provided no evidence that pardons were signed without Biden’s knowledge and noted legal scholars say presidents do not need to personally hand-sign pardons to make them operative [4]. AP likewise reported autopen signatures have been used for substantive actions and that the Constitution does not require pardons to be in writing [5].
5. Competing interpretations and political motives
Republican investigators framed autopen use as evidence of incapacity and unaccountable aides; Oversight Committee materials explicitly link the autopen to allegations of concealed decline and request criminal and professional referrals [2] [6]. Critics and many legal scholars argue the investigation and its conclusions are politically motivated and that autopen use is routine, historically accepted, and legally defensible [4] [5]. The Times of India and other outlets similarly reported that legal scholars rejected Trump’s claims that he could nullify Biden-era actions based solely on autopen use [10].
6. What is clearly supported by available reporting — and what is not
Available reporting documents documented historical autopen use by presidents (Jefferson-era precursors, Truman, Johnson, Ford) and confirmed Barack Obama used an autopen to sign legislation while abroad in 2011 [1]. The Oversight Committee publicly released a report asserting that some Biden actions signed by autopen are void and seeking DOJ review [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention any definitive court ruling or Department of Justice finding that autopen-signed pardons or executive actions are invalid — instead, fact-checkers and legal analysts cited in reporting say such a blanket invalidation lacks legal basis absent evidence a staffer acted without the president’s authorization [4] [5] [9].
7. Bottom line for readers
Autopens have a long, bipartisan administrative history inside the presidency and have been used for time-sensitive legislation and mass correspondence [1] [5]. Recent political and congressional attention has elevated the device into a high-stakes partisan dispute: Republicans’ Oversight report deems certain Biden autopen-signed actions void and urges prosecutions, while independent legal analysis and fact-checkers say those claims are not substantiated by the public record and that autopen use alone does not automatically nullify executive acts [2] [3] [4].