The Fifth Amendment Firestorm: Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Joe Biden’s Health, and a Web of Controversy

In a dramatic turn of events, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Joe Biden’s former White House physician, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition before the House Oversight Committee on July 9, 2025.

This unprecedented move has sparked intense scrutiny, raising questions about whether O’Connor lied about Biden’s health and what his silence might imply about a broader cover-up within the Biden administration. The implications of this action ripple far beyond O’Connor himself, potentially ensnaring a circle of aides and advisors in legal jeopardy, challenging the legitimacy of Biden’s executive actions, and exposing deep constitutional and political fault lines.

Background: Who Is Dr. Kevin O’Connor?

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, a retired U.S. Army colonel, served as the White House physician under Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Appointed in January 2021, O’Connor brought a wealth of experience and a personal connection to the Biden family, having cared for Biden’s late son, Beau, during his battle with brain cancer. As the president’s physician, O’Connor was responsible for monitoring Biden’s health and providing public updates on his fitness to lead.

Throughout Biden’s presidency, O’Connor painted an optimistic picture of the president’s condition. In February 2024, just months before Biden’s faltering debate performance prompted his exit from the 2024 presidential race, O’Connor issued a memo following Biden’s annual physical. He described Biden as a “healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency.” Yet, this rosy assessment has since been overshadowed by revelations of Biden’s late-stage prostate cancer—undisclosed until after he left office—and mounting evidence of cognitive decline, casting doubt on O’Connor’s credibility.

The Deposition: Invoking the Fifth Amendment

The House Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), launched an investigation into whether Biden and his aides concealed mental deficiencies that impaired his ability to serve as president. As part of this probe, O’Connor was summoned for a closed-door deposition. The committee sought answers about his medical evaluations of Biden and any role he played in what Republicans allege was a deliberate effort to mislead the public about the president’s health.

During the session, O’Connor refused to answer key questions, invoking both physician-patient privilege and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. His attorney, David Schertler, explained that this decision stemmed from the “unique circumstances” of the investigation, including a parallel criminal probe initiated by President Trump’s administration. Notably, Chairman Comer highlighted two specific questions O’Connor dodged:

Did anyone instruct him to lie about Biden’s health? And Did he believe Biden was unfit to perform his duties? By pleading the Fifth, O’Connor avoided self-incrimination—but his silence has fueled speculation about what he might be hiding.

Obstruction or Protection? The Legal Tightrope

O’Connor’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment places him in a precarious position. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves, a right rooted in the U.S. Constitution. However, in the context of a congressional investigation, his refusal to answer can be perceived as obstructing the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth. Legally, he cannot be penalized for exercising this right—but the catch is that his silence may shift the burden onto others.

If O’Connor were compelled to testify without penalty (e.g., through immunity), his answers could incriminate a wider group of Biden aides and advisors who allegedly suppressed information about the president’s health. The House Oversight Committee has already targeted former White House chiefs of staff Ron Klain and Jeff Zients, senior advisors Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, and others for interviews.

If O’Connor’s testimony revealed a coordinated effort to conceal Biden’s condition, these individuals could face criminal prosecution for conspiracy, fraud, or abuse of power. His decision to plead the Fifth thus acts as both a shield for himself and a potential dam holding back a flood of liability for others.

The Trump administration’s parallel criminal investigation amplifies the stakes. Focusing on whether Biden’s team deceived the public about his mental capacity and unconstitutionally exercised presidential authority, this probe could leverage any congressional findings to pursue charges. O’Connor’s silence, while constitutionally protected, may only delay the inevitable if other evidence—such as documents or witness testimony—corroborates the allegations.

Executive Orders and Pardons: The Autopen Dilemma

A central pillar of the investigation is the use of an autopen to sign executive orders, pardons, and other official documents during Biden’s presidency. The autopen—a mechanical device that replicates a signature—is a common tool for presidents, legally permissible as long as the president authorizes its use. Many, if not most, of Biden’s executive actions reportedly bore an autopen signature, a practice that, in itself, is unremarkable.

However, the controversy erupts if Biden was not mentally coherent when these authorizations occurred. Republicans allege that during periods of alleged incapacity, Biden’s aides may have used the autopen without his explicit directive. If true, this would render those actions—including executive orders on climate policy, immigration, and economic measures, as well as pardons—unconstitutional. The Constitution vests executive power in the president alone; decisions made by unelected aides in his name, without his capacity to consent, violate that framework.

The House Oversight Committee is scrutinizing whether Biden’s inner circle, described by some as a “Politburo” of advisors like Annie Tomasini, effectively ran the government during his decline. Reports from journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson in their book Original Sin suggest these aides were the “ultimate decision makers.” If they deployed the autopen to enact policies or issue pardons without Biden’s lucid approval, those actions could be nullified, and the perpetrators could face charges ranging from forgery to usurping executive authority.

The 25th Amendment: A Failure of Duty

The 25th Amendment provides a clear process for addressing presidential incapacity. Under Section 4, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet can declare the president unable to discharge his duties, transferring power to the vice president. Despite Biden’s visible struggles—most notably his June 2024 debate performance, which precipitated his withdrawal from the race—this mechanism was never activated.

This inaction is staggering. If Biden was as impaired as critics claim, the failure to invoke the 25th Amendment suggests either gross negligence or a deliberate choice to preserve power. Vice President Kamala Harris, the cabinet, and senior aides bore a constitutional responsibility to act if Biden’s health compromised his leadership. Their apparent refusal to do so could be construed as complicity in a cover-up, exposing them to legal consequences. Critics argue that this lapse warrants prison time for those who prioritized political loyalty over the nation’s well-being, allowing an unfit president to remain in office.

The decision not to invoke the amendment also raises questions about Biden’s own agency. If he was too incapacitated to step aside voluntarily, the onus fell on his team to act—yet they didn’t. This omission has become a lightning rod for those demanding accountability, amplifying calls for criminal prosecution.

Smoke, Bread, and Circuses: Political Theater Under Trump

While the investigation into O’Connor and Biden’s health carries weighty implications, it risks devolving into political spectacle. The phrase “smoke, bread, and circuses” captures the critique that this probe serves as a distraction—a way for the current Trump administration to appease public outrage without tackling thornier issues like economic recovery or healthcare reform. By waiving executive privilege for O’Connor and other Biden aides, Trump has fueled the investigation, satisfying demands for transparency without committing to the harder task of prosecution.

Yet, Trump and his team may be complicit if they stop short of meaningful action. The legal hurdles to convicting former officials are steep: proving intent, overcoming immunity claims, and navigating partisan gridlock could stall any case. If the administration opts for symbolic gestures—hearings, reports, or public shaming—rather than aggressive prosecution, the effort may fizzle into a populist stunt. This ambivalence has led some to question whether the investigation is less about justice and more about settling political scores.

Additional Dimensions: Public Reaction and Beyond

Public and Media Response

The saga has polarized the public. Supporters of the investigation, particularly on platforms like X, demand accountability, with some calling for O’Connor’s arrest for perjury or evidence tampering. Others see it as a partisan vendetta, a view echoed by Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who dismissed the probe as an obsession with the past. Media coverage spans the spectrum, from outlets amplifying the scandal to those framing it as a distraction from pressing national challenges.

Unanswered Questions

Several threads remain unresolved:

-Biden’s True Condition: What did O’Connor know, and when? Medical records or insider accounts could clarify the timeline of Biden’s decline.

-Scope of the Cover-Up: How many aides were involved, and what was their motive—loyalty, power, or fear of political fallout?

-Future Fallout: Could invalidated executive actions spark legal chaos, such as challenges to pardons or policy reversals?

A Crisis of Trust

Dr. Kevin O’Connor’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment has ignited a firestorm that transcends his own fate. It suggests a potential cover-up of Joe Biden’s health, implicating a web of aides who may have suppressed the truth and wielded power in his name.

The unconstitutional use of the autopen, the failure to invoke the 25th Amendment, and the specter of criminal liability paint a damning picture of a presidency in crisis. Yet, the risk of this becoming mere political theater looms large, with Trump’s administration poised to either pursue justice or let it fade into distraction.

This saga is a stark reminder of the fragility of democratic norms. Whether it leads to prison sentences, overturned policies, or simply more cynicism depends on the resolve of those now in power—and the vigilance of a public left questioning who truly held the reins of government.