House Republicans are investigating former President Joe Biden’s cognitive fitness, facing both legal and constitutional hurdles as several key aides resist cooperation. Steve Ricchetti, who previously served as a top aide to both President Clinton and Vice President Biden, was summoned for a deposition but emphasized Biden’s fitness for the job. Meanwhile, three other Biden figures, including former administration aide Annie Tomasini and White House doctor Kevin O’Connor, invoked the Fifth Amendment during their depositions. The inquiry centers on questions about the use of the autopen—a device that signs documents on behalf of the president—to sign legal documents, with some lawmakers suggesting these signatures should be nullified. Similar concerns arose when First Lady Edith Wilson took over daily executive functions after President Woodrow Wilson’s stroke. Democrats have criticized the probe as a distraction from pressing issues like the economy, while Republicans argue it is essential to prepare for potential cognitive decline in future leaders.
The House Oversight Committee summoned Ricchetti for a closed-door deposition, hoping to gain insight into Biden’s cognitive state during his presidency. Ricchetti, who worked for President Clinton and served as a key advisor in the Biden White House, often visited Capitol Hill during negotiations on the debt ceiling in 2023. He was asked directly, ‘Was the President up for the job?’ Ricchetti replied, ‘Of course he was.’ His testimony underscores the Republican effort to assess Biden’s ability to perform his duties. However, the probe has also faced significant resistance. Three former Biden aides, including Tomasini, former Jill Biden aide Anthony Bernal, and White House doctor Kevin O’Connor, invoked the Fifth Amendment during their depositions. This legal maneuver has complicated the investigation, as they refuse to answer questions, raising concerns about the scope of the inquiry.
Republican lawmakers have raised questions about the legality and authenticity of documents signed by Biden using the autopen, arguing that anyone signing on his behalf should be held accountable. Rep. Andy Biggs compared the situation to historical cases, suggesting that the White House may have been run by someone else during Biden’s tenure. Rep. Pat Fallon, on Fox Business, claimed that autopen signatures should be considered invalid, drawing parallels to Woodrow Wilson’s wife, Edith Wilson, who took over executive duties after his stroke. These concerns highlight the Republican effort to address potential accountability issues in the White House. However, Democrats have criticized the investigation as a political distraction, urging the GOP to focus on economic and policy issues instead.
Democrat Sen. Peter Welch accused Republicans of wasting time on the probe, arguing that the party should prioritize addressing the nation’s economic challenges. Sen. John Fetterman, who himself faced health concerns after a stroke during his 2022 campaign, echoed this sentiment, suggesting that former President Biden should not be the focus of the inquiry. The GOP, however, maintains that the investigation is crucial for understanding how to handle potential cognitive decline in future leaders. Sen. Lindsey Graham emphasized that the probe is setting a template for the future, noting that the same issues could arise if a Republican president were to face similar challenges.
The investigation also extends to lawmakers themselves, as Congress has seen several senior members face health-related retirements or reduced duties. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a prominent Democrat representing a district that President Trump carried three times, introduced a plan requiring cognitive standards for House members. However, the House Appropriations Committee rejected her amendment, citing constitutional and legal concerns. The Supreme Court previously ruled against term limits, suggesting that imposing additional qualifications on lawmakers could be unconstitutional. This highlights the broader challenge of balancing individual capabilities with the will of voters, as seen in past cases where the House refused to seat an elected member due to alleged misconduct.
As the probe continues, it remains a deeply political and constitutional issue. The House and Senate may need to address how to handle potential cognitive decline in leaders, but the lack of clear guidelines or legal mandates has created a complex and contentious debate. The situation reflects a broader tension between the rights of elected officials and the needs of the country, particularly in times of uncertainty or decline in leadership. With no easy solutions, the debate over cognitive fitness in leadership continues to shape political discourse in the United States.