Which presidents have frequently used the autopen and for what types of documents?
Executive summary
Autopen machines have been used by many U.S. presidents for decades to reproduce signatures on routine and time-sensitive documents; documented modern uses include Barack Obama signing the Patriot Act and an appropriations bill while overseas and Joe Biden using an autopen to approve an FAA funding extension while traveling [1] [2]. Recent political controversy — including President Donald Trump’s 2025 public declarations that he would “terminate” documents he says Biden signed with an autopen — has thrust the device into the center of a partisan dispute over legitimacy and oversight [3] [4].
1. Presidents who have used the autopen: a short catalogue
Autopen use stretches back to the early republic (Thomas Jefferson used a primitive duplicating device) and is well documented among 20th- and 21st-century presidents; Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are all cited in reporting and historical summaries as users of autopen or similar signature-replicating devices [1] [5]. Modern reporting also notes that multiple presidents, including Donald Trump, have acknowledged or been reported to use autopens for some purposes [6] [5].
2. What kinds of documents presidents have signed with autopens
Contemporary sources show autopens are commonly employed for routine, bulk, or time-sensitive instruments: legislation and appropriations when the president is overseas or out of Washington (Barack Obama used it to sign the Patriot Act extension and an appropriations bill while abroad) and short-term executive needs such as a temporary FAA funding extension signed by Joe Biden while traveling [1] [2]. Reporting also highlights that autopens have been used for ceremonial items, letters, and other high-volume tasks where the signature is administrative rather than a deliberative act [5] [7].
3. The constitutional and legal backdrop cited by reporters
News coverage and legal commentary repeatedly note that autopen use has not been novel or per se ruled unlawful: the Department of Justice historically found autopen use by a president consistent with Article I, Section 7 language (historical reporting summarized in encyclopedic sources), and courts have not broadly invalidated presidential actions merely because an autopen applied the signature [2] [1]. Legal experts quoted in reporting say it is “very hard to imagine” a president unilaterally voiding another president’s orders solely on that basis, and that longstanding practice undercuts arguments that autopen signatures automatically negate official acts [8] [6].
4. How the autopen became a partisan flashpoint in 2025
In 2025, autopen use moved from a technical detail to a political cudgel. President Trump publicly announced plans to “cancel” or “terminate” documents he alleges were signed by Biden with an autopen and repeatedly framed autopen use as evidence of incapacity or illegitimacy, claiming large percentages of Biden-era documents were autopen-signed [3] [4]. Major outlets — The Guardian, CNN and NBC — describe these claims as politically motivated and note there is no public audit verifying the dramatic percentages Trump cited [9] [3] [6].
5. Conflicting narratives and the evidence gaps
Reporting shows two competing narratives: critics assert autopen use can mask delegation or substitute decision-making and thus warrant scrutiny, while defenders point to routine, documented past practice and official statements that the president authorized actions even when physically absent [3] [6]. Crucially, available sources say there is no public record enumerating how many documents Biden or other presidents had autopen-signed, and independent forensic audits validating the viral “92%” claim have not been produced in the reporting cited [6] [10].
6. What matters for policy and public trust
The debate is less about the machine and more about transparency and provenance: autopens solve practical problems (speed, volume, travel) but create political vulnerability when oversight is weak or when opponents frame use as shirking responsibility [7] [5]. Journalistic and legal sources emphasize precedent: autopen signatures have been accepted historically for important instruments when the president authorized them, yet political opponents can weaponize the practice absent clear public documentation [1] [8].
Limitations: public reporting in these sources documents named presidents’ use and recent partisan claims, but available sources do not provide a comprehensive, independently verified list of every document type autopened across administrations nor an audited count of how often any recent president used the device (not found in current reporting).