Biden’s Doctor Stonewalls Health Probe, Pleads 5th.

Written by Nathaniel Brooks.

A House Republican investigation into former President Joe Biden’s health during his tenure has encountered a significant obstacle, as his former White House physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, has declined to provide testimony. This refusal, grounded in claims of doctor-patient privilege and Fifth Amendment protections, has intensified scrutiny over the transparency of Biden’s medical condition while in office. The probe, led by the House Oversight Committee, seeks to determine whether Biden’s mental and physical fitness impacted key decisions, raising questions about the legitimacy of certain actions taken during his presidency. This article examines the details of the investigation, the implications of O’Connor’s silence, and the broader context of executive accountability.

Dr. O’Connor’s Refusal to Testify

In a closed-door session with the House Oversight Committee, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who served as Biden’s White House physician, invoked both doctor-patient confidentiality and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering questions. The committee had issued a subpoena compelling his testimony as part of an inquiry into Biden’s health and mental acuity during his presidency. O’Connor’s attorney, David Schertler, defended the decision, emphasizing the physician’s obligation to protect patient privacy and noting the complicating factor of an ongoing Justice Department investigation into Biden’s use of the White House autopen for signing documents.

The autopen, a device that replicates a signature, is at the heart of Republican allegations that some of Biden’s actions may have been executed without his full mental capacity. The Oversight Committee, chaired by Representative James Comer of Kentucky, contends that if Biden was incapacitated at times, policies enacted via the autopen could be deemed invalid. O’Connor’s refusal to engage has fueled accusations of a deliberate cover-up, with Comer asserting that the doctor’s silence suggests a broader conspiracy to obscure the truth about Biden’s condition.

Biden has vehemently rejected these claims, describing them as baseless and politically motivated. The former president maintains that he was fully capable throughout his term, and his administration has dismissed the investigation as a partisan effort to tarnish his legacy. Nevertheless, O’Connor’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment—a tactic also used by allies of former President Donald Trump during probes like the January 6 Capitol attack investigation—has heightened public and political interest in the matter.

Scope of the Republican Investigation

The House Oversight Committee’s inquiry is expansive, targeting not only O’Connor but also nearly a dozen former Biden aides. Among those summoned are high-profile figures such as former White House chiefs of staff Ron Klain and Jeff Zients, former senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, and former counselor Steve Ricchetti. The committee has also subpoenaed Anthony Bernal, who served as chief of staff to former First Lady Jill Biden. These individuals are being questioned about their interactions with Biden and any observations regarding his health or decision-making capacity.

A significant development aiding the investigation is the Trump administration’s decision to waive executive privilege for most of these former staffers. Executive privilege typically shields communications between a president and their aides from congressional scrutiny, but its absence in this case allows witnesses to speak freely about their conversations with Biden. This move has provided the committee with unprecedented access to insider accounts, potentially shedding light on the former president’s condition during critical moments of his term.

The investigation’s focus on the autopen stems from its use in signing executive orders and other documents, a practice that, while common, has raised concerns when paired with questions about mental fitness. Republicans argue that if Biden was not fully aware of the documents he was authorizing, the legal and ethical implications could be profound. For example, executive actions on immigration, climate policy, or economic measures could face challenges if evidence of incapacity emerges. The committee has pledged to compile a comprehensive report of its findings, which could influence public perception and future governance standards.

Democrats, led by Representative Robert Garcia of California, have criticized the probe as a distraction from more pressing issues, such as addressing economic challenges or investigating alleged corruption within the current administration. Garcia argues that the focus on Biden’s past health is an inefficient use of congressional resources, particularly when compared to the potential for oversight of contemporary policy failures. This partisan divide underscores the challenge of conducting objective investigations in a polarized political climate.

Context and Broader Implications

The controversy surrounding Biden’s health reflects a growing public demand for transparency regarding the physical and mental fitness of elected leaders. As the oldest president in U.S. history at the time of his inauguration, Biden faced persistent questions about his capacity to lead, particularly in his later years in office. While regular health reports were issued, they often lacked detailed insights into cognitive function, prompting speculation and skepticism. The current investigation taps into these concerns, raising broader questions about how much the public should know about a president’s medical status.

The use of the Fifth Amendment by O’Connor is not unprecedented but carries significant weight in this context. Witnesses in high-profile congressional probes, such as those involving Watergate or the Iran-Contra affair, have similarly invoked their rights to avoid self-incrimination. However, in O’Connor’s case, the invocation is complicated by his dual role as a physician bound by ethical obligations and a public servant subject to oversight. This tension highlights the delicate balance between personal privacy and public accountability, a recurring theme in American governance.

The Justice Department’s parallel investigation into the autopen’s use adds another layer of complexity. While details remain scarce, the probe appears to focus on whether the device was employed in a manner consistent with legal standards. For instance, if aides used the autopen without Biden’s direct authorization during periods of diminished capacity, it could raise questions about the chain of command and the integrity of executive actions. Such issues have historical parallels, such as debates over President Woodrow Wilson’s incapacity during his 1919 stroke, which left his wife and aides to manage access to him.

Public reaction to the investigation has been mixed, shaped by partisan loyalties and broader distrust in government institutions. Social media platforms have amplified calls for transparency, with some users demanding full disclosure of Biden’s medical records, while others view the probe as a politically driven witch hunt. This divide mirrors broader trends in American politics, where investigations often serve as tools for scoring points rather than resolving substantive issues. The challenge for the Oversight Committee will be to produce findings that are perceived as credible and impartial, a tall order in today’s climate.

The investigation also has implications for future administrations. As medical technology advances and leaders live longer, questions about cognitive decline and fitness for office will likely intensify. Proposals for mandatory cognitive testing or independent medical evaluations for presidents have gained traction in recent years, though they face resistance due to privacy concerns and the risk of politicization. The Biden probe could set a precedent for how such issues are addressed, potentially shaping constitutional and legislative frameworks for executive health disclosures.

Our Take

Dr. Kevin O’Connor’s refusal to testify in the House Republican investigation into Joe Biden’s health is a troubling development that undermines public confidence in governmental transparency. While his invocation of doctor-patient privilege and Fifth Amendment rights is legally defensible, it leaves critical questions about Biden’s fitness during his presidency unanswered. The Oversight Committee’s inquiry, though marred by partisan overtones, addresses a legitimate concern: the need for clarity on a president’s capacity to govern, particularly when tools like the autopen are used. The waiver of executive privilege for former aides offers a rare opportunity for insight, but the investigation must prioritize evidence over politics to achieve meaningful results. Ultimately, this episode underscores the necessity of establishing clear protocols for assessing and disclosing presidential health, ensuring that the American public is not left in the dark about their leader’s ability to serve.