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: Which other presidents have used auto pens for signing official documents?
Executive Summary
The central verifiable point is that autopens have been used by multiple presidents for decades, and recent investigations note that their use is not unprecedented; specific prior examples are referenced generally but not exhaustively in the available reports [1] [2]. The House Oversight materials assert that President Biden used an autopen for pardons and note other presidents—including former President Trump—have used autopen devices, but those reports do not catalogue a definitive list of which presidents used autopens for which types of official acts [1] [2].
1. Why this debate matters: presidential signatures, validity, and precedent
The dispute centers on whether an autopen signature undermines the legal validity of executive acts, a question that rests on constitutional interpretation, historical practice, and administrative record-keeping as presented in the documents. The Oversight Committee frames the issue as a potential nullification of thousands of pardons if autopen use coincided with alleged incapacity [2] [3]. By contrast, reporting and presidential statements cited in the materials emphasize continuity: autopen use has been part of White House practice for decades and has been used for substantive actions in prior administrations [1] [2]. The reports do not produce conclusive legal determinations; they present a factual claim that autopen use is historically common while urging legal review in this instance [4].
2. What the provided reports actually say about other presidents
The available documents and reporting uniformly state that other presidents have used autopens, often mentioning former President Trump as an example quoted by President Biden, but none of the provided reports offer a comprehensive list of presidents or detailed case-by-case examples within the materials reviewed here [1] [4]. The House Oversight report and affiliated summaries assert that autopen usage is not unique to President Biden and characterize the practice as established White House administrative behavior; however, the committee does not cite documentary evidence within these excerpts that itemizes prior autopen uses or ties them to specific substantive presidential decisions [2] [5]. The contrast is important: the claim of precedent is stated, but the supporting documentation is not reproduced in the excerpts we have.
3. Conflicting framings: administrative practice versus alleged incapacity
Two competing narratives emerge from the materials: one frames autopen use as routine administrative delegation that preserves lawful presidential action, the other frames it as potential concealment of incapacity that could void actions taken without the president’s conscious assent [6] [3]. The presidential memorandum cited explicitly alleges abuse of signature authority and potential concealment tied to cognitive decline, urging investigation [6]. The Oversight Committee report emphasizes the seriousness of the allegation and recommends review of thousands of pardons, while acknowledging that the report does not produce direct evidence that others made substantive decisions in place of the president [4] [3]. Both frames rely on precedent claims; neither provides exhaustive documentary evidence in the excerpts provided.
4. Where the evidence in these documents is strong — and where it gaps
The materials are strongest in asserting two linked facts: autopen technology has been used by multiple administrations, and the Oversight Committee believes that particular uses in the current administration warrant legal review [1] [2]. The materials are weakest in providing a transparent, sourced catalogue of prior presidential autopen uses or in demonstrating direct proof that any presidential decisions were executed without the president’s knowledge in the current instance [2] [5]. Multiple reports acknowledge the precedent claim but stop short of offering primary documents within the excerpts we have; this leaves a gap between the assertion of historical practice and the concrete evidence a reader would need to assess comparisons across administrations [1] [4].
5. Bottom line: established practice but incomplete public documentation
Taken together, the sources establish that autopen use by presidents is an established administrative practice referenced by multiple reports and by presidential statements, and that contemporary oversight bodies consider certain autopen uses sufficiently consequential to warrant legal review [1] [2] [3]. The materials do not, within the excerpts provided, supply a definitive list of other presidents who used autopens for signing official documents, nor do they lay out detailed documentary examples linking autopen use to specific substantive presidential decisions beyond generalized statements. The factual claim that other presidents used autopens stands; the evidentiary claim that such use is equivalent to the current allegations of void actions is left to legal analysis and further document production [2] [5].