Biden was medically unfit at the end of his presidency.

1. Official medical verdicts: multiple public memos saying “fit for duty”

Across routine annual physicals and public medical summaries, White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor and others issued repeated statements that Biden “remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency,” describing him as “healthy, active, robust” or “healthy, vigorous” in memos released in 2023 and 2024 after exams at Walter Reed ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. What those memos recorded — and what they did not resolve

The released medical summaries documented specific conditions (for example, a stiffened gait linked to a prior foot fracture, use of a CPAP for sleep apnea, atrial fibrillation noted as asymptomatic and managed, and removal of small skin lesions) and explicitly stated no new concerns after examinations, but they also did not always include formal cognitive testing in public releases and stopped short of prognosticating how health might change years into the future ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

3. Public perception and political critiques that framed “unfitness” claims

Independent of medical summaries, polls and political actors amplified doubts: surveys showed substantial portions of the public saying Biden was “too old to effectively serve” or questioning his mental fitness, and politicians across the spectrum publicly cast aspersions — for example, Democratic Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez expressed doubt about his capacity to finish a term and figures like J.D. Vance later argued he was not fit following health developments — all of which shaped the narrative of alleged unfitness even when not grounded in new clinical findings in the records cited ^{[3] [8] [7]}.

4. Contradictions between medical summaries and legal or investigative characterizations of memory

The special counsel’s report on classified documents used terms such as “hazy,” “fuzzy,” and “faulty” to describe memory lapses, language that fueled allegations about cognitive decline; Biden publicly pushed back, and his physician’s exam summaries did not certify cognitive impairment, creating a factual tension between investigative characterizations of memory and the clinical statements released by his medical team ^[1].

5. Subsequent medical events and retrospective debates about sufficiency of earlier disclosures

Reporting later revealed that Biden received a prostate cancer diagnosis in 2025, with metastasis to bone noted by his office; some commentators said earlier exams had described conditions like asymptomatic atrial fibrillation but did not signal that cancer would arise, and critics used later diagnoses to question whether the earlier public disclosures and testing were sufficient for voters assessing fitness during the 2024 cycle ^{[9] [8]}.

6. Bottom line: evidence available in public reporting does not establish he was medically unfit at term end

On the record provided by official memos and contemporaneous coverage, clinicians who examined Biden publicly concluded he was fit to perform presidential duties at the times of those exams ^{[1] [2]}; assertions that he was medically unfit rely largely on public perception, selective interpretations of investigative language about memory, and later health developments that were not reflected in the physician’s prior statements — therefore, the claim that “Biden was medically unfit at the end of his presidency” is not supported by the medical summaries and reporting in the sources provided, though reasonable alternative viewpoints and political doubts existed and later medical disclosures have invited renewed scrutiny ^{[5] [3] [9]}.