Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Have any medical professionals publicly raised concerns about Biden's mental fitness for office?
Executive Summary
Multiple medical professionals have publicly expressed concerns about President Joe Biden’s cognitive fitness, ranging from individual practitioners asserting suspicion of dementia to reporting that aides considered but declined cognitive testing; these public concerns are documented in media reports and a 2025 book but are contested by White House defenders and Biden’s physicians [1] [2] [3]. The debate is fragmented: some clinicians and commentators have made explicit diagnostic claims in public fora, while other medical figures and Biden’s own doctor have defended his fitness, leaving the record one of contested professional opinion rather than a single medical consensus [1] [4].
1. Loud Alarm Bells: Physicians Speaking Out and Media Profiles
A July 2024 profile reported that nine physicians—including internists, geriatricians, neurologists, and a neurosurgeon—publicly told reporters they were concerned Biden’s symptoms went beyond normal aging and could indicate cognitive impairment or a neurodegenerative process, framing their concerns as clinical interpretations of public behavior and medical risk [1]. These physicians provided reasoned, though publicly based, observations and emphasized clinical features they considered worrisome; their comments reached a national audience via a long-form magazine piece that helped crystallize the clinical critique into public conversation. The report does not establish a formal, peer-reviewed diagnosis but documents multiple clinicians willing to voice concern in public settings [1].
2. High-Profile Individual Claims: Media Doctors and Historical Assertions
Some individual clinicians have made explicit, long-standing claims about Biden’s cognition in media interviews and podcasts, such as psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow asserting he suspected “an element of dementia” as early as 2012 after a debate performance and concluding later appearances suggested continuing cognitive issues [5]. These assertions are notable for being retrospective clinical judgments based on observation rather than in-person examinations, and they have been amplified by partisan and nonpartisan outlets alike. Ablow’s comments illustrate how individual clinicians can shift public perception by linking historical moments to a diagnostic narrative without contemporaneous testing or published clinical documentation [5].
3. The Physician for the President: Legal Maneuvers and Questions about Qualifications
In July 2025 reporting, President Biden’s osteopathic physician, Kevin O’Connor, DO, invoked the Fifth Amendment during a congressional probe into Biden’s mental fitness, a development that partisan outlets framed as evasive while defenders pointed to legal counsel and procedural context [4]. Some commentators seized on O’Connor’s DO credential to question whether an osteopathic physician is equipped to assess cognitive decline, though in U.S. practice DOs are fully licensed physicians who often perform such evaluations. The Fifth Amendment invocation escalated political scrutiny but does not itself confirm or refute medical assessments about cognition. The reporting underscores how legal and political events intermingle with clinical debate [4].
4. Inside the White House: Aides, Cognitive Tests, and Damage Control
Book reporting in May 2025 described Biden aides debating a cognitive test in early 2024 and ultimately deciding against it to avoid drawing attention to age or mental acuity, reporting that the decision was taken to manage political optics rather than to declare medical certainty [2] [3]. This internal deliberation indicates that Biden’s team recognized political vulnerability tied to perceptions of cognitive health, and that choices about testing and disclosure were driven by strategic calculation. The book’s claims come from reporting by authors who interviewed participants and reviewed materials; they add context about why formal cognitive evaluation never became a publicized medical fact [2] [3].
5. Political and Media Amplification: How Commentary Shapes the Medical Story
Late-2025 media exchanges—such as a televised clash between a comedian and the White House press secretary on Biden’s mental acuity—illustrate how non-medical commentators and partisan outlets amplify clinical claims and defensive messaging into broader cultural disputes [6]. These moments show medical concerns are often mediated by entertainers, political aides, and pundits, shifting focus from clinical criteria to political theater. The result is a public record where medical claims exist alongside denials and strategic communication, complicating any effort to derive a purely clinical consensus from media reports [6].
6. What’s Missing: No Public, Shared Clinical Evaluation or Peer-Reviewed Evidence
Across the reporting, there is no public, peer-reviewed medical evaluation establishing a formal diagnosis of dementia or neurodegenerative disease for President Biden; instead the record consists of physician commentary, internal deliberations reported by journalists, and partisan legal events [1] [2] [3]. That absence matters: clinicians who voice concern in media do not substitute for confidential clinical exams, standardized cognitive testing, or consensus statements from professional bodies. The existing documents are valuable for transparency about perceptions and concern but stop short of producing a verified medical determination [1] [2].
7. Bottom Line: Multiple Professional Concerns, No Definitive Public Diagnosis
Multiple medical professionals have publicly raised concerns and individual clinicians have asserted possible dementia, while Biden’s team and physician have defended his fitness and chose not to publicize cognitive testing; legal and political episodes have further muddied the record [1] [4] [5] [2] [3]. The factual landscape is one of contested professional opinion and political debate, not a settled medical verdict available in the public domain. Readers should treat public clinician assertions as meaningful but incomplete evidence, and recognize that only formal, documented clinical evaluation could provide a definitive public medical assessment.