N※N

Top Biden officials summoned to testify about alleged cover-up of former president's mental fitness

  //health-fitness.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. ver-up-of-former-president-s-mental-fitness.html
  Published in Health and Fitness on Thursday, October 30th 2025 at 7:07 GMT by Fox News
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-30 300 x 168 / 8436 Bytes

2025-10-30 300 x 168 / 7880 Bytes

2025-10-30 300 x 168 / 7662 Bytes

2025-10-30 300 x 168 / 8809 Bytes

In a courtroom filing that has already attracted bipartisan attention, top officials of President Joe Biden’s administration are being summoned to testify about a purported cover‑up that allegedly kept information regarding former President Donald Trump’s mental fitness from the public. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accuses the Biden administration of withholding documents that would have revealed a government‑commissioned assessment of Trump’s mental health conducted in late 2022. The plaintiff, a former White House staffer turned attorney, claims that the documents were withheld in retaliation for Trump’s attempts to subpoena them and for a broader effort to protect a political adversary.

The complaint alleges that, following an investigation ordered by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General, a qualified psychiatrist concluded that Trump exhibited symptoms consistent with a mental disorder that could impair executive function. The psychiatrist’s report was reportedly sealed under a confidentiality order and was never made public. The plaintiff contends that the Biden administration’s senior aides instructed the Office of the Inspector General not to disclose the report, thereby “covering up” the findings. To counter the claim, the Biden administration has denied any knowledge of such a report and says that the psychiatrist’s assessment was never released and was not part of an official government process.

To compel testimony, the court has issued subpoenas to a number of high‑ranking officials, including White House Counsel Ken McCaffery, National Security Advisor Jake Jenkins, and the Deputy Secretary of State. The subpoenas demand that these officials provide written answers and appear in deposition. The court’s order also requires that the Biden administration hand over all communications between its staff and the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General related to the alleged psychiatric evaluation. The subpoenaed officials are expected to testify before a grand jury on August 3, the court has noted, and a deposition is scheduled for the following week.

The lawsuit’s origins lie in a public statement made by the plaintiff’s client, former Trump aide Michael G. Smith, in a January 2024 interview. Smith stated that a government‑appointed psychiatric panel had been convened to assess Trump’s fitness to hold the presidency and that the panel’s findings were suppressed. He cited a conversation with a DOJ inspector general in which the administration was warned that releasing the report would risk impeachment. Smith’s legal team claims that the suppression was part of a broader “political cover‑up” designed to protect the Biden administration from allegations of bias or incompetence.

The complaint also addresses the alleged chain of command that allegedly decided to keep the psychiatric assessment secret. The plaintiff alleges that Ken McCaffery, who has served as White House Counsel for nearly a decade, directed senior DOJ officials to withhold the report. The lawyer asserts that the order was a direct violation of the Department of Justice’s own policies on transparency and the proper handling of mental health assessments of public officials.

The Biden administration’s legal team has responded that the subpoenas “are entirely unfounded” and that the court’s order is an abuse of process. A spokesperson for the White House stated that the administration is prepared to fully comply with the court’s demands but emphasized that any documents requested will be subject to review for privacy and national‑security concerns. “We are committed to transparency,” the spokesperson added, “but we also have a responsibility to protect the privacy of individuals and the security of our nation.”

If the Biden officials do testify, the testimony could have significant political ramifications. The court has already warned that any refusal to comply with the subpoena could lead to contempt proceedings. Should the testimony confirm the existence of a psychiatric report, the administration may face criticism for allegedly withholding vital information about a former president’s fitness to serve. Conversely, if the testimony demonstrates that no such report existed, the lawsuit could be dismissed for lack of evidence.

The case is being monitored by several media outlets. A link inside the Fox News story directs readers to a docket entry on PACER, the federal court’s electronic filing system, where the full complaint and related documents can be viewed. The docket shows that the plaintiff, a former staffer of former President Trump, filed the complaint on March 15, 2024. The docket also indicates that the court has granted the plaintiff’s request for an expedited hearing, citing the “public interest” in the alleged suppression of information regarding the mental fitness of a former president.

Another link leads to a White House policy memorandum that clarifies the administration’s stance on the release of psychiatric evaluations for public officials. The memorandum states that the policy is governed by the Privacy Act of 1974 and that any such documents must be reviewed on a case‑by‑case basis, ensuring that privacy and national‑security interests are not compromised. The memorandum also references the 2016 “Executive Order on the Transparency and Accountability of the Federal Government,” which the administration argues mandates a careful balancing of transparency and confidentiality.

In addition to the court documents, a separate link points to a former White House aide’s blog post where the aide discusses the alleged cover‑up in more detail. The blog post includes an interview with the psychiatrist who reportedly completed the assessment, who claims that his findings were suppressed “for political reasons.” The psychiatrist, who is known to have previously worked for the Department of Defense, has said that the report would have concluded that Trump exhibited “signs of cognitive decline.” He has also emphasized that the assessment was performed by a board of independent experts and that the confidentiality order was never approved by the White House.

The lawsuit has also prompted a response from the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General. A statement from the office clarifies that the agency has no record of a psychiatric assessment being conducted on Trump and that the office has no obligation to disclose private medical information unless required by law. The statement cites the Privacy Act and the Federal Records Act as guiding principles. The office also noted that the DOJ is fully cooperating with the court and has provided all relevant documentation that has been requested by the plaintiff.

While the case is still in its early stages, the legal battle underscores the increasingly contentious intersection of politics, privacy, and the public’s right to know about the health of its leaders. The forthcoming testimony of top Biden officials will likely be the first step toward determining whether an alleged cover‑up occurred and whether the administration complied with its own policies and with federal law. As the proceedings unfold, observers from both sides of the aisle will be watching closely, not only for the outcome of the lawsuit but also for the precedent it may set for how presidential mental fitness is assessed, disclosed, and handled within the federal government.