I think I read it on X. I just asked GROK and it looks like its a misinterpretation most likely. Apparently this is the source for the opinion: https://www.justice.gov/file/494411/dl Its a 30 page PDF on the matter. It specifically talks about bills but not pardons. >>There seems to be some confusion about what the Justice Department said in 2005 regarding autopen signatures. The 2005 memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel actually addressed the use of an autopen for signing legislation, not pardons specifically. It concluded that a president does not need to personally affix their signature to a bill for it to become law, and they can direct a subordinate to use an autopen to sign on their behalf, as long as the president has made the decision to approve it. This opinion is based on Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which governs the process of signing bills into law. When it comes to pardons, the Constitution (Article II, Section 2) grants the president broad authority to issue pardons without specifying that a physical signature is required. Legal precedent and historical practice suggest that the use of an autopen does not inherently invalidate a pardon, provided the president authorized it. For example, other presidents, like Barack Obama, have used an autopen for official documents, including pardons, without legal challenges overturning them. The 2005 opinion doesn’t explicitly say autopen signatures are invalid for pardons—rather, it supports their use for legislation when directed by the president, and this logic has been extended to other executive actions by experts.