Which presidents are known to have used autopen and for what types of documents?
Executive summary
Multiple U.S. presidents have used autopen-style signature machines for decades to sign a range of documents including routine proclamations, legislation when traveling, appropriations measures and other high-volume or time‑sensitive items; documented users include Thomas Jefferson (early copying device), Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, and Joe Biden has acknowledged using it while traveling [1] [2] [3] [4]. Modern reporting shows autopen use for time‑critical legislation (Obama used it for the Patriot Act and an appropriations bill while overseas; Biden used it for an FAA funding extension while traveling) and presidents sometimes limit it to “less important” papers [2] [3] [4].
1. A short history: presidents and the “robot pen”
The autopen’s ancestry goes back to the early 1800s; the first signature‑duplicating polygraph device was patented in 1803 and Thomas Jefferson used an early iteration during his presidency [1] [2]. The modern autopen, described by historians and the Shapell Manuscript Foundation, became a routine administrative tool in mid‑20th century presidencies; Lyndon B. Johnson publicized it and John F. Kennedy was reported to rely on it heavily, earning it cultural attention and even a book about his dependence [2].
2. Which presidents are explicitly documented as users
Reporting and historical accounts in the available sources name several presidents who used autopen or similar machines: Thomas Jefferson (early device), Lyndon B. Johnson (visible use), John F. Kennedy (heavy reliance), Gerald Ford (open about using it), Barack Obama (first president to use autopen to sign the expiring Patriot Act in 2011 and to sign an appropriations bill from abroad), Donald Trump (has admitted occasional use for “very unimportant papers”) and Joe Biden (used it while traveling for at least one funding extension) [1] [2] [3] [4].
3. What kinds of documents were signed by autopen
Contemporary sources show a pattern: autopen use is common for bulk, time‑sensitive or geographically inconvenient signings. Examples: Obama used the autopen to sign the expiring Patriot Act and an appropriations bill while overseas, and to meet the fiscal‑cliff deadline from Hawaii; Biden used it to sign a one‑week FAA funding extension while he was in San Francisco to avoid a lapse [2] [4] [1]. Presidents and aides have characterized some autopen uses as administrative or “unimportant” paperwork, though specifics vary by administration [3] [5].
4. Legal and political context: why autopen use sparks debate
The Department of Justice previously concluded autopen use by a president is consistent with Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution in at least one prior inquiry, but the device’s use has become politically charged. Recent political actors have weaponized autopen stories: House Republicans produced reports alleging improper use during Joe Biden’s presidency, and President Trump has publicly attacked Biden’s autopen use, claiming pardons and executive orders signed by autopen are invalid — claims described by multiple outlets as baseless or unproven in public reporting [1] [6] [7] [5]. Legal analysts quoted in reporting say it is “very hard to imagine” a straightforward legal path for a successor to simply void prior acts solely because they bore an autopen signature [8].
5. Competing perspectives and incentives
Historical sources present autopen as an ordinary administrative tool used across parties [2]. Journalistic and political sources now frame it differently: critics argue autopen use can mask who actually authorized decisions (House Oversight’s report) and opponents exploit autopen narratives to question a president’s capacity; defenders point to longstanding precedent, prior DOJ views, and routine uses when presidents travel [6] [1] [4]. Each outlet carries an implicit agenda: committee reports seek political accountability, advocacy pieces aim to highlight alleged misconduct, and history sites frame continuity and practice [6] [5] [2].
6. What reporting does not resolve
Available sources document instances and users but do not provide a comprehensive ledger of every autopen use for every president; there is “no public record of how many documents were signed by autopen” in Biden’s administration and precise counts remain unestablished [4] [5]. Sources do not establish a settled legal standard that would automatically invalidate orders or pardons solely because the autopen was used; some reporting references prior DOJ views but legal analysts say unilateral nullification is unlikely [1] [8].
7. Takeaway for readers
Autopen use by U.S. presidents is longstanding and bipartisan; historically it has been used for routine, volume or travel‑necessitated signings [2] [4]. Recent political controversies amplify the device’s symbolic power, but reporting shows dispute over legal consequences and no consensus evidence that autopen‑signed documents are inherently invalid [8] [7]. Readers should treat claims that autopen use alone nullifies executive acts as contested and look for documentary specifics rather than broad assertions [5] [7].