Barack Obama’s former White House doctor is accusing President Biden’s physician of omitting crucial cognitive testing, igniting a political firestorm over presidential fitness and transparency.
At a Glance
- Obama-era physician Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman criticized President Biden’s medical team for skipping standard cognitive tests.
- White House doctor Dr. Kevin O’Connor declared Biden “fit for duty” in 2024 but failed to perform any mental acuity evaluations.
- GOP figures including Donald Trump and Rep. James Comer have launched investigations into alleged concealment of Biden’s cognitive state.
- Aides cited in the book Original Sin reportedly voiced internal concerns about Biden’s mental fitness.
- Critics argue that recent signs, such as a prostate cancer diagnosis and speech missteps, warrant stricter screening protocols for aging leaders.
Expert critique on presidential health screening
In a rare rebuke, Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served under President Obama, warned that President Biden’s clean bill of health in 2024 was incomplete without a formal neurocognitive evaluation. Tests like the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, he argued, are essential for leaders in their 70s and 80s to ensure decision-making capacity.
Despite growing concern about Biden’s apparent cognitive slips, no such assessments were included in the president’s last medical report. Kuhlman contended that Dr. O’Connor’s omission may have misled the public on Biden’s full condition—especially compared to Donald Trump, who completed the same exam in 2021.
Watch a report: A Washington Post analysis of Dr. Kuhlman’s comments on presidential health standards.
Political backlash and legal scrutiny
The revelations have turbocharged partisan investigations. House Oversight Chairman James Comer issued subpoenas to Dr. O’Connor and senior White House staff on June 5, aiming to uncover whether Biden was capable of executing duties unaided. This comes amid allegations that executive actions were authorized by autopen, possibly bypassing Biden’s direct involvement.
Adding fuel, Trump’s legal team filed requests to determine whether Biden’s mental condition compromised key foreign policy or economic decisions. The inquiries follow explosive claims from Original Sin, which features anonymous aides alleging Biden’s inner circle worked to obscure moments of confusion or fatigue.
Implications and transparency debate
Kuhlman’s stance has revived debates over what level of medical transparency the public deserves. The U.S. currently has no formal requirement for presidential cognitive screening—an omission some experts warn could be a national security blind spot.
Public reaction is polarized: supporters defend Biden’s performance as evidence of fitness, while opponents cite health gaps and medical nondisclosure as disqualifying. With Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis in May 2025 and signs of verbal incoherence during late 2024, scrutiny has intensified over what voters were told—and what was withheld.
This episode has intensified bipartisan calls for mandated cognitive evaluations of presidential candidates over age 70. As legal investigations unfold and congressional hearings proceed, Americans face a new political question: Who decides when a president is too old to serve—and how can we be sure?
