Which U.S. presidents relied most on the autopen and why?
Executive summary
Presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Barack Obama and into the 21st century have used autopens for high-volume or remote signing; Thomas Jefferson is credited with using an early “polygraph,” Lyndon Johnson popularized public awareness, and Barack Obama notably used it while abroad to sign major bills [1]. Contemporary debate centers on Joe Biden’s alleged autopen use and Donald Trump’s 2025 claims that roughly “92%” of Biden’s documents were autopen-signed — a figure reported as Trump’s assertion but not independently verified in the available reporting [2] [3].
1. Historical roots: the “robot pen” began with Jefferson
The autopen’s long presidential pedigree matters to the current controversy: Thomas Jefferson purchased polygraph machines—mechanical precursors to the autopen—and is usually identified as the first president to use such devices; subsequent presidents including Harry Truman (rumored), Gerald Ford (open), and Lyndon B. Johnson (who publicized it) extended its use in the White House [1].
2. Practical reasons presidents rely on autopens
The device answers a mundane but real problem: presidents must sign vast quantities of routine correspondence and, when traveling or facing time zones, must execute time‑sensitive legislation or instruments; Obama, for example, used the autopen while attending international summits and to sign the expiring Patriot Act and fiscal cliff legislation when remote [1].
3. Legal and institutional tolerance: OLC and DOJ guidance
A 2005 Office of Legal Counsel (and similar Justice Department) guidance has been cited repeatedly: the president “need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature” and may direct a subordinate to affix the signature — “for example by autopen” — a legal view reported across outlets and used to justify autopen usage for bills and certain documents [4] [5].
4. Where lines blur: ceremonial versus legally consequential acts
Sources and commentators agree the autopen is uncontroversial for ceremonial letters and bulk correspondence [6] [1]. Disagreement emerges over its use on instruments with substantial legal effect — pardons, executive orders and similar acts — with commentators and partisan investigations raising the question whether routine delegation should extend to clemency or other singular acts [7] [8].
5. The 2025 flashpoint: Biden, the Oversight reports, and Trump’s 92% claim
In 2025 Republican oversight activity and reports brought intense scrutiny to the Biden White House’s autopen use; Trump amplified that scrutiny by asserting about “92%” of Biden’s documents were autopen-signed and declaring he would void them, an assertion repeated across outlets but presented as Trump’s claim rather than an established fact [2] [3] [8]. Available sources show Biden has contested any suggestion he lacked involvement, and reporting notes there is no definitive public proof that autopen use occurred without his authorization [5].
6. Competing perspectives and political incentives
Mainstream reporting (Guardian, CNN, Al Jazeera) frames autopen controversy as legally limited but politically useful: critics portray autopen use as evidence of lost control or incapacity, while legal memos and historical precedent emphasize its constitutionality and routine administrative utility [4] [2] [5]. Partisan outlets and congressional GOP investigations present the practice as evidence of malpractice or cover‑ups [9] [8]; these sources have clear political incentives to amplify concerns about a Democratic president.
7. Which presidents relied on it most — what evidence shows
The record names Jefferson as an early adopter and Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford as prominent users; Barack Obama is the first modern president documented using the autopen to sign major legislation while abroad [1]. The current reporting does not provide a definitive ranked list that quantifies “most” use across administrations; assertions that Biden’s use reached 92% are reported as claims, not independently corroborated facts in the available material [2] [3].
8. Limitations, open questions, and what to watch next
Existing sources document precedent and OLC guidance but do not settle the harder questions: whether autopen use, absent explicit contemporaneous attestation by a president, should invalidate pardons or policy acts [7] [5]. Investigations, legal opinions, or court rulings will be the decisive sources going forward; current reporting shows political actors on both sides are using autopen facts to bolster legal and political arguments [8] [2].
Notes on sourcing and framing: this analysis relies exclusively on the provided reporting and institutional history (Shapell, major outlets and GOP materials). Where claims—such as the “92%” figure—appear, they are attributed to those who stated them and not treated as established fact because the available sources do not independently verify that number [2] [3] [8].