| Published June 19, 2025
As questions swirl around President Joe Biden’s health during his final months in office, a Senate Judiciary hearing held on June 18 pulled back the curtain on what some witnesses called the most alarming constitutional crisis in modern history. With explosive claims ranging from the routine use of an autopen to sign executive orders, to suggestions that a small inner circle was effectively running the country, the hearing reignited debate over Biden’s capacity to govern—and whether the American public was knowingly kept in the dark.
👤 Key Witnesses, Loaded Claims
Three Republicans testified:
-
Sean Spicer, former Trump press secretary, lambasted media for not scrutinizing Biden’s cognitive health, unlike their treatment of Trump.
-
Theodore Wold, ex‑DOJ official, revealed that Biden’s autopen signature device was used from Day 5 of his presidency, raising the specter that Biden didn’t sign key actions himself.
-
John Harrison, law professor, questioned the constitutional legitimacy of decisions made without direct presidential oversight.
A burn‑through of video evidence and quotes suggested that “five people” in Biden’s inner circle—or “the board”—might have been running the country, with the president playing little more than a ceremonial role.
WATCH:
Oh my goodness… did you see this today? Do you see where all of this is going?
The Autopen might just nullify every single action Joe Biden took as president.
His cognitive decline is going to be the end of many…
– Anthony Fauci
– Bennie Thompson
– Liz Cheney
– Adam… pic.twitter.com/w6d09SyDlg— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) June 18, 2025
A third Biden autopen was recently discovered amid a federal investigation into “who ran the United States while Biden was in office.”
🚫 Democratic Walk‑Out
Democrats, except for Senator Peter Welch, boycotted the hearing, calling it political theater and accusing Republicans of “arm-chair diagnosing” Biden’s health while ignoring critical national issues. Senator Dick Durbin walked out after decrying the session as a waste of the Senate’s time .
📜 Deeper Investigations: House Oversight Moves In
Concurrent to this Senate hearing, House Republicans—led by Oversight Chair James Comer—have already subpoenaed at least five of Biden’s senior aides and his physician to testify about autopen usage and cover-ups.
Closed-door interviews are set to unravel whether key executive decisions were taken without Biden’s direct oversight.
🎯 Core Implications
-
1. Potential Constitutional Crisis
If executive decisions were made or signed without Biden’s direct input, this raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of presidential authority. The Constitution vests executive power in the president—not in aides or a “board.”
2. Erosion of Public Trust
Revelations that an autopen may have been used to sign major directives from the very start of Biden’s presidency could deepen the public’s sense of betrayal and distrust in both the executive branch and the media that failed to report on it.
3. Calls for Oversight Reform
The controversy may fuel bipartisan calls for clearer medical transparency standards for presidents, especially relating to cognitive health. Some lawmakers are already floating the idea of mandatory annual mental fitness evaluations.
4. Weaponization of Health in Politics
While Republicans accuse Biden’s team of a cover-up, Democrats argue the hearing is politically motivated. This could open the door to future health-based attacks on political opponents, turning presidential fitness into a partisan weapon.
5. Legal and Historical Precedent
Should it be proven that key decisions were made without Biden’s capacity or consent, legal challenges could follow—and history may judge this as a moment where institutional integrity was compromised for political expedience.
Overall Takeaway:
The Senate hearing on President Biden’s mental fitness has pulled the nation into uncomfortable, uncharted territory. If the testimonies hold weight, they suggest that the United States may have been governed—at least in part—by unelected aides and advisors while the sitting president was no longer fully engaged. Beyond politics, this controversy strikes at the core of constitutional order and public trust. As investigations continue, the country is left to grapple with a sobering question: Who was really in charge—and why weren’t we told?
Be the first to comment