Opinion | Investigate Biden’s health in office, but investigate Trump’s, too
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Investigate both Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s health and fitness – The Washington Post
Congress should investigate Joe Biden’s health while he served as president, writes Tom Martella. Martella: Investigation should also look into President Donald Trump’s health. He says such an investigation could only provide meaningful information if conducted by an independent team of experts and if not politically motivated.Martella: If they determine that Trump suffers from a health issue that makes him unfit for office, they must act for the nation’s good and not for political advantage for they must investigate Biden’s health in the past or Trump’s in the future, he says. The editorial board’s focus on fitness for service strengthens the argument for investigating Biden’s now, Martella says. But he says he is disappointed that former White House physician Kevin O’Connor is refusing to testify about his patient’s health despite confidentiality laws that apply to health records. The board’s decision to not investigate Biden”s health during his administration was unbecoming of Congress, Martello says. He adds that he is extremely disappointed in what has occurred with what seems to me to be a cover-up into the serious matter of a president’S health.
Furthermore, demonstrating a clear, current focus on fitness for service strengthens the argument for investigating Biden’s health now. And need I mention, investigating Trump’s health would highlight any risks the nation faces now — not just hypothetically, were Biden to have won the 2024 election. Examining what health-related assessments are the norm in high-level executive positions in both private- and public-sector organizations would also offer insights into how Congress should handle these cases.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
Tom Martella, Washington
The July 11 editorial on the congressional investigation into former president Joe Biden’s health during his administration cited a number of concerns. Those included forgetting names of top aides, use of teleprompters and tiredness, which imply that Biden might have been unable to fully exercise the duties of the presidency. The editorial also pushed for Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s onetime doctor, to be more forthcoming about his patient’s health despite confidentiality laws that apply to health records.
To expect an unbiased and nonpolitical investigation into this matter as the editorial would want is ludicrous, given the political environment of Congress. Though such an investigation could be useful, it could only provide meaningful information if conducted by an independent team of experts and if not politically motivated. Congress could authorize such a review. Congress’s job is to investigate and react to what is going on in the country by proposing laws. What laws would be proposed after an investigation into Biden’s health? Limit the age at which a candidate could run for president? Such an action would probably require a constitutional amendment and take years to enact.
Advertisement
Though Biden might have exhibited some of the symptoms of age, whether they affected his ability to function as president is doubtful, as he achieved many positive things for the country during his term. With so much at stake in the country these days, Congress should spend its time on much more pressing issues.
Advertisement Advertisement
Jared Wermiel, Silver Spring
Sadly, the “unflinching investigation into Biden’s fitness” that the July 11 editorial advocated would probably never happen in today’s Congress. Extreme polarization has made it impossible.
Democrats do not have faith in Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky), chairman of the Oversight Committee, to conduct a proper investigation. Nor should they, given that Comer’s impeachment investigation of President Joe Biden was unbecoming of Congress. Even Comer’s witness, conservative legal scholar Jonathan Turley, testified there was not enough evidence for impeachment.
Advertisement
So, unlike the Editorial Board, I am not the least bit disappointed that former White House physician Kevin O’Connor is refusing to testify.
But I do agree fully with the Editorial Board that Americans deserve an unflinching investigation into Biden’s health. I am a Democrat of 45 years, and I am extremely disappointed in what has occurred with what seems to me to be a cover-up into the serious matter of a president’s health. Democrats’ claim that Donald Trump was a threat to democracy was undermined when they appeared to hide from American voters the condition of their 2024 presidential candidate. Attempting to conceal the true condition of their candidate would be a threat to democracy.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
Bruce Kirby, Rockville
Advertisement
Does it really matter whether Congress investigates former president Joe Biden’s health in office, as the July 11 editorial charged? He’s retired. Leave him alone. Here’s a better idea: Investigate the health of our current president. He’s the only one who should really matter to Congress.
During Donald Trump’s first term, dozens of psychiatrists and mental health experts collaborated on a book alerting the American public to the potential danger he posed. Clues to Trump’s mental state have been plainly observable for many years. So have at it, lawmakers. But, if they determine that Trump suffers from a health issue that makes him unfit for office, they must act for the nation’s good and not for political advantage.
Paul Mazich, Yorktown, Virginia
Advertisement
The writer is a retired commander in the U.S. Navy.
How to use the opioid settlement
Regarding the July 19 editorial, “The opioid settlement can help save lives”:
Naloxone, or Narcan, is a lifesaving tool, and expanding its accessibility should absolutely be a key target of opioid settlement fund spending. But it is not the only strategy worthy of investment.
The settlement agreement allows for the funds to be used for opioid use disorder and other substance use disorders, recognizing the high rates of poly-substance use and that substance-specific strategies are often ineffective (particularly for prevention). These funds provide an unprecedented opportunity to address our nation’s addiction crisis. Let’s encourage states to spend them on the things that we know work not only to reduce opioid overdoses but also to end the recurring cycles of addiction and drug epidemics. Spending all settlement funds on increasing access to naloxone will not prevent the emergence of the next drug epidemic. This can only be done by investing the settlement funds in effective prevention strategies that promote resilience and emotional well-being among youths, targeting the root causes of substance use and an array of other negative health and social outcomes.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement
Though naloxone is a powerful tool for preventing overdose, it will not prevent drug use, nor is it a treatment for addiction. It only reverses opioid overdoses; it does not reduce deaths from other major contributors to preventable deaths in the United States: alcohol and tobacco.
Treatment, particularly Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for opioid use disorder, is also a critical tool for reducing overdoses. The suggestion that treatment only works for people willing to seek it out ignores the reality that treatment is widely unavailable and often unaffordable. Expanding access to effective treatment must also be a key focus of the settlement fund spending.
States should absolutely use the settlement funds to prevent opioid overdoses and save lives. The danger is in suggesting that there is one solution to this multifaceted crisis.
Advertisement
Lindsey Vuolo, New York
Linda Richter, Scarsdale, New York
Lindsey Vuolo is vice president of health law and policy at the Partnership to End Addiction. Linda Richter is senior vice president of prevention research and analysis.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
In 2013, we worked on the development of the White House drug strategy, which recommended broader access to naloxone and also recognized the need for an expanded system of care for people with substance use disorder.
We are encouraged by The Post’s July 19 editorial that called attention to the persistent issue of overdose deaths facing the United States. We also appreciated the Editorial Board’s desire to see opioid settlement dollars spent on evidence-based interventions that will reduce overdose deaths. We heartily agree and have dedicated our careers to advancing these interventions.
Advertisement
However, though we agree that naloxone and overdose prevention efforts are key elements of a state or local community’s response to overdose deaths, naloxone cannot be the primary or sole response simply because this investment alone will not yield the greatest possible impact.
Methadone and buprenorphine are the most evidence-based treatment medications for opioid use disorder, and they can have the biggest impact on mortality. That’s because these medications provide long-term overdose prevention, decreasing mortality by nearly 50 percent; they support sustained recovery and improved outcomes for individuals, as well as stability for families and communities; and naloxone is estimated to have only a 3.6 percent mortality prevention effect.
Advertisement Advertisement
Treatment medications dramatically lessen illicit opioid use, thereby driving down the risk of overdose (and the demand for illicit opioids such as fentanyl).
As the editorial states, long-term efforts are needed, but we must also look to the evidence to drive effective strategies that improve lives and prevent deaths.
Regina LaBelle, Takoma Park
Caleb Banta-Green, Seattle
Regina LaBelle was acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Biden administration and also served at ONDCP in the Obama administration. Caleb Banta-Green was a senior science adviser at the White House ONDCP during the Obama administration.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/07/23/joe-biden-fitness-donald-trump-health/