Investigate Biden's health in office, but investigate Trump's, too
Investigating Biden's situation after the fact might help support arguments for greater transparency and awareness. But politicizing the move by focusing on one party dooms the effort at this point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bruce Kirby, Rockville
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
The writer is a retired commander in the U.S. Navy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post Opinions wants to know: What would you add to a time capsule to represent America today? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In the news today: 10 candidates in Alberta byelection to debate
Here is a roundup of stories from The Canadian Press designed to bring you up to speed... 10 candidates in Alberta byelection to debate Ten candidates vying to represent Battle River-Crowfoot in the House of Commons are to debate tonight in the riding's largest municipality. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's press secretary Sarah Fischer says he will be attending the event hosted by the Camrose & District Chamber of Commerce ahead of the Aug. 18 byelection. Poilievre is looking to win in the sprawling eastern Alberta riding after he lost his long-held Ottawa seat of Carleton in the April general election. The writ was dropped last month after Conservative Damien Kurek, who handily won the seat in the April vote, stepped down so Poilievre could run. About 210 candidates were registered to run as of Monday on Elections Canada's website, including Liberal candidate Darcy Spady, the NDP's Katherine Swampy, Independent Bonnie Critchley and dozens of others sponsored by the Longest Ballot Committee protest group. Here's what else we're watching... Businesses hoping for carveouts in potential deal Business leaders and academics say they hope to see Canada and the U.S. maintain free-trade protections for most goods once an agreement is reached, even if the negotiations can't stave off certain sectoral tariffs. It's unclear if the two countries will stick to the Aug. 1 deadline for wrapping up talks. Prime Minister Mark Carney said Monday negotiations were in an "intense phase" but U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters last week that Canada wasn't a priority for his administration. Whether a deal is announced Friday or later, Canadian Federation of Independent Business president Dan Kelly says his organization's members feel "a good chunk" of trade must remain tariff-free in order for talks to be considered successful. He says it wouldn't be a win for Canada if the trade agreement ends up looking similar to the deal struck by the U.S. with the European Union on Sunday. That framework imposes a 15-per-cent tariff on most goods imported into the U.S., including European automobiles, and there are no carveouts for key products like pharmaceuticals and steel. Motion on B.C. injection site closure deferred City council in Nanaimo, B.C., has voted to defer a motion on asking the local health authority to close an overdose prevention site next to city hall. The vote to defer Coun. Ian Thorpe's motion passed with a 6-3 vote in favour of deferral during a special meeting of council on Monday night. Had the motion not been deferred and instead passed a council vote, it would have resulted in the city formally requesting that Island Health close the site on Albert Street. The motion came after a similar request this month by Victoria Coun. Marg Gardiner related to a safe consumption site that she says is plagued by crime, although councillors in that city delayed the motion until later this year. B.C.'s Health Ministry says while overdose prevention services are vital programs, they are expected to take action to mitigate "street disorder within the immediate vicinity of sites during operating hours." Ex-MLA Chen draws deep for tale of gender violence Former British Columbia legislator Katrina Chen sits on a couch in her Burnaby home, reading aloud from the children's book she's co-written. The mother and son in the story, "A Stronger Home," co-written with Elaine Su, turn their backs on a scene of domestic turmoil: a broken vase, furniture overturned, sofa cushions in disarray. "I wrote this book as a survivor of gender-based violence with personal experiences about how violence has touched and impacted my whole life," said Chen, B.C.'s former minister of state for child care. Chen, who also has a young son, sees the problem as an urgent one, pointing to a recent spate of alleged intimate partner violence in B.C. This month alone, there has been the killing of an 80-year-old Abbotsford woman and the death of her husband in what police consider a murder-suicide; the killing in a Richmond apartment of a 51-year-old woman whose partner has been charged with second-degree murder; and the death of Bailey McCourt, allegedly beaten to death in a Kelowna parking lot by her estranged husband, James Plover, also charged with second-degree murder. Chen said it was "totally heartbreaking and unacceptable" to hear of such tragedies, and society needed to see the violence as an emergency. She and other advocates want changes to the legal and social justice systems to prevent it from continuing. Artists reflect on colourful Toronto moose project As people around the world welcomed a new millennium, Torontonians in the year 2000 were welcoming something even bigger – a herd of hundreds of life-size moose statues. Twenty-five years ago, Toronto launched its Moose in the City campaign, a project featuring 326 colourful moose statues decorated by artists and placed all over the city in an effort to usher in the new year with a boost for local tourism and art sectors. The project came at no cost to the city, according to council minutes from April 2000, and the statues were sponsored by various companies. The public could stumble upon the hoofed, herbivore masterpieces at locations including the CN Tower, Pearson Airport and city hall. Some of the artists involved say the project was emblematic of the city's culture and shows how municipalities can step up to support the art scene — even as some of the famed sculpted creatures have disappeared in the years since. Moose in the City was a "great collaboration with the city" for artists, said Kelly Borgers, who was commissioned to do three of the statues. There was even a launch party for the project, with music and a sculpture parade. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 29, 2025. The Canadian Press
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Free trade carveouts key in potential deal between U.S. and Canada: business groups
Business leaders and academics say they hope to see Canada and the U.S. maintain free trade protections for most goods once an agreement is reached, even if the negotiations can't stave off certain sectoral tariffs. It's unclear if the two countries will stick to the Aug. 1 deadline for wrapping up talks, as Prime Minister Mark Carney said Monday negotiations were in an "intense phase" but U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters last week that Canada wasn't a priority for his administration. Whether a deal is announced Friday or later, Canadian Federation of Independent Business president Dan Kelly says his organization's members feel "a good chunk" of trade must remain tariff-free in order for talks to be considered successful. He says it wouldn't be a win for Canada if the trade agreement ends up looking similar to the deal struck by the U.S. with the European Union on Sunday. That framework imposes a 15 per cent tariff on most goods imported into the U.S., including European automobiles, and no carveouts for key products like pharmaceuticals and steel. Kelly says Canadian business leaders will also be watching to find out what levies will remain on imports from the U.S., noting Canada's ongoing retaliatory tariffs "are really crippling small businesses even more than the U.S. tariffs." This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 29, 2025. Sammy Hudes, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's DOJ puts companies on notice: Don't evade tariffs
The Justice Department is putting American companies on notice that they could be prosecuted if they chose to evade President Trump's tariffs, even as the legality of the president's "Liberation Day" duties remain unsettled in US courts. The message came in a DOJ announcement earlier this month stipulating that prosecutors would step up investigations into suspiciously classified imports and charge those who misidentify products with fraud. 'While the DOJ has always taken some customs cases, this is a different, more aggressive, visible stance than they usually would,' said Thompson Coburn trade lawyer Robert Shapiro. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances The plan — to be carried out by the DOJ's new Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit — marks a shift in enforcement tactics from prior administrations that relied mostly on policing misconduct through administrative proceedings, even during Trump's first term in office. The new Trump administration instead wants to prioritize criminal charges against companies and individuals that try to evade US tariffs. The overarching strategy was first outlined by Matthew R. Galeotti, head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, who wrote in a May memo that an increasing focus on white collar crime would include "trade and customs fraudsters, including those who commit tariff evasion." At the same time, the Trump administration finds itself in the unusual position of defending the legality of the duties it pledges to enforce. Oral arguments in a federal lawsuit challenging the president's tariffs are set to take place before the US Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., this Thursday. The small business importers challenging the legal standing of the duties already proved it was possible to temporarily derail Trump's global tariffs with a lower court victory in May. In a separate challenge, two toy manufacturers are scheduled to make their own arguments against Trump's tariffs before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30, following their own lower court victory. 'We're going to raise the ante' Tariff violations can be prosecuted under civil or criminal laws. However, even fraud cases were often handled administratively by past administrations, according to Shapiro. 'I think the administration is just saying we're going to raise the ante on this,' Shapiro said. University of Kansas School of Law professor Raj Bhala said laws against customs fraud have long been in force, but the appetite for the DOJ and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to clamp down on violations has increased. Historically, Bhala and other trade lawyers said, prosecutors focused government resources on suspected tariff violations by US adversaries such as China, Iran, and North Korea, and particularly on export controls meant to keep controlled items from shipping to those countries. Producer-exporters, especially in China and other high-tariff regions, have been using evasion techniques for decades, mostly to skirt anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders, Bhala said. But now, under more imposing tariffs, incentives to evade duties have spiked 'enormously.' 'What is clear is that a lot of companies are looking for a way to limit the impact of the duties,' Shapiro said. In this new tariff and enforcement environment, trade experts suspect that corporate America and its trading partners are on high alert. Erika Trujillo, a trade attorney with customs risk management firm SEIA Compliance Technologies, said the shift toward more enforcement happening at the DOJ and less through administrative procedures could increase politically motivated targeting of companies viewed as adverse to the Trump administration's interests. 'I do think trade restrictions were used as both a sword and a shield for foreign companies, or in terms of dealing with international trade,' Trujillo said. Common tariff evasion techniques include misclassifying goods, falsely labeling a product's country of origin, making minor modifications to a product while it's in a lower-tariff jurisdiction to pass it off as manufactured there, and transhipping goods through lower-tariff jurisdictions. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs 'It's hard to imagine that any well-run company that has supply chains stretching across the globe — particularly in higher-tariff jurisdictions like China or Cambodia — would not be having vigorous discussions to ensure every step in the supply chain is properly documented and audited,' Bhala said. Bhala cautions that the stakes are high for importers subject to US jurisdiction. 'They're the importer of record and they're the ones who are liable for the tariffs,' he said. 'And false declarations are what we call 'go to jail stuff.'' For fraud, fines can also be assessed, up to the domestic value of the merchandise. For civil violations made based on negligent actions, maximum penalties are two times the underpayment of duties, in addition to original duties. For violations based on gross negligence, penalties increase to four times the underpayment of duties. For businesses looking to assess their risk, US Customs maintains an electronic system called the Automated Commercial Environment (ACT) that allows importers to view what their classification data looks like to customs. Small and midsize companies may find it more difficult to evaluate their compliance risks compared to multinational firms. 'If you're an SME, you probably have one or two lawyers, and they're not necessarily trade specialists,' Bhala said. Plus, there are different rules for thousands of products. For example, a typical NAFTA good, he explained, traverses the US-Canada border roughly four times. 'It's really difficult for companies of that size to be dealing with this,' Trujillo said. One major challenge is finding affordable internal expertise. 'Almost every company I know is actively hiring for both customs and export controls, and sanctions. You're basically stuck going to law firms or other external consultancy, and the small and medium-sized firms are maybe not going to have the budget to pay $1,100 an hour.' Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet For certain suspected violations like those made by mistake, Shapiro said it doesn't make economic sense for the DOJ to get involved. 'They don't have the manpower for it,' he said. But a new enforcement policy seems to fit the Trump administration's broader tariff agenda, he added. 'If you're going to have this tariff policy, you're going to have to take a more aggressive stance, because it's a huge ocean of imports, and it's very hard for customs to enforce against everyone.' Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
