Opinion - No repeat of Biden: A medical panel must oversee presidents' annual physicals
If you were skeptical about information coming from the government before, you have even more reason to be now.
The revelation that former President Joe Biden has an aggressive form of prostate cancer, coming after a slew of books and reports highlighting his physical and mental decline while in office, has raised even more questions about whether the public can trust the medical information coming from a president's personal doctor. To address these concerns, a president's annual physical should be performed by a panel of widely respected, independent physicians who then jointly release the information and their assessments.
Of course, lack of public trust regarding presidents' physical or mental fitness for office has been raised by both political parties. Democrats repeatedly questioned President Trump's medical reports, especially his mental competency. For example, when 'The Daily Show' host Jon Stewart mentioned that the 6-foot 3-inch Trump, who has an ample girth, weighed 224 pounds according to his April physical, the audience laughed disbelievingly.
To adapt an old hair-coloring commercial, only his doctor knows for sure.
But what about Biden's last physical as president? Dr. Kevin O'Connor, who had been Biden's personal doctor since 2009, announced in February of last year that Biden was 'fit for duty.' O'Connor added that Biden was a 'healthy, active, robust 81-year-old.'
In his announcement, O'Connor says that other specialists were included and that physicians in the White House Medical Unit 'have independently reviewed the chart, examined the President, and concur with my findings and recommendations.'
Those specialists apparently were not made available for questions from the press. And when one clicks on NPR's White House weblink to O'Connor's report, it's been (surprise!) removed.
That Biden's doctor could release a rosy medical assessment of the president's mental and physical health only four months before his disastrous debate with Trump raises serious concerns about the veracity of the findings, especially now that people associated with Biden are fessing up to their previous doubts.
The prostate cancer diagnosis has only heightened suspicions that Biden, his family and his doctor were withholding important information. While some doctors concede that it's at least possible that the disease only recently emerged, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist who has worked for Biden — and the brother of Rahm Emanuel, who may seek the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination — said, 'He had it while he was president. He probably had it at the start of his presidency in 2021. Yes, I don't think there's any disagreement about that.'
There has been some debate about whether, given his age, Biden's doctor included a test that can detect prostate cancer. But we can say for sure that Trump's doctor did, since it was released to the public.
We have several other instances where presidents tried to hide their medical problems. For example, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a serious stroke in 1919, leading to speculation that his wife, Edith, was essentially running the country until Wilson finished his term in 1921. President Franklin Roosevelt contracted polio but tried to hide that from the public for years. President John F. Kennedy had back problems and Addison's disease, which affects the adrenal glands. And many Democrats raised the possibility that President Ronald Reagan was slipping mentally in his final years. He announced in 1994 that he had Alzheimer's Disease.
Given the growing bipartisan skepticism about a president's health — even leading to discussions of invoking the 25th Amendment to the Constitution — what should be done?
The president is not mandated to take an annual physical or release the results. The practice started with President Richard Nixon, and his successors have seen it as an important, though voluntary, practice.
Given the public skepticism in these hyper-partisan times, the president's annual physical needs some changes. It should be done by a panel of independent physicians, such as the heads of a few medical schools and some relevant medical associations (such as family physicians, internists and mental health).
The panel should release their findings and then face the press for questioning, highlighting any areas of disagreement. In other words, there should be no doubt that the president has been fully examined and that the medical team has no interest in omitting or glossing over problems. Before physicians are allowed to pronounce the commander-in-chief 'fit for duty,' they should recognize their duty to be honest with the public.
Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
12 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Louisiana lawmakers reject adding exceptions for some rape cases to abortion ban
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — For the third consecutive year, Louisiana lawmakers rejected a bill that would have allowed young victims of rape to get an abortion. In an emotional and religious-laced legislative committee meeting on Tuesday legislators objected to adding rape, in cases where the girl is under the age of 17 and impregnated as a result of the sexual offense, to the narrow list of exceptions for one of the strictest abortion bans in the country. 'If we're truly pro-life, we should also be fighting for the life of those children who are raped and molested,' said the author of the bill, Democratic Rep. Delisha Boyd, who argued that under Louisiana's current law young victims of rape are forced to carry babies to term. Among those who opposed the proposed exception was Democratic Rep. Patricia Moore, who spoke publicly about being conceived after her mother was raped as a young teenager. While speaking against the bill, Moore discussed her religious beliefs and said she has struggled with her decision on the measure. Even ahead of the meeting she said she asked God to 'show me something in the Bible that can address this.' Moore said in the area of Louisiana that she represents, she is aware of a nine-year-old who is pregnant; 'I'm struggling because life and death, according to our Heavenly Father it's in his hands. I'm like, 'God are you wanting this child... to have a baby? What good can come out of this?'' 'I know we got to protect our children, but to this point right now, I cannot vote 'Yes' because I'm constantly hearing that God would take a bad situation and turn it into good,' Moore said. Like Moore, Boyd has publicly shared that she was born after her mother was raped as a teen. Boyd was born in 1969, four years before abortion became legal under the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade ruling. More than five decades later, rape survivors in Louisiana who become pregnant find themselves in a similar situation to Boyd's mother: forced to carry the baby to term in a state that has one of the country's highest maternal mortality rates, or to travel to another state where abortion is still legal. Boyd said while she is grateful to be here, her mother and Moore's mother did not a have a choice to get an abortion in Louisiana. 'I know the Bible. But I also know God gives people the ability to do right and wrong,' Boyd said, urging her lawmakers to give victims of rape and their families the ability to choose if they get an abortion in Louisiana. The bill failed 3-9, with two Democrats siding with Republicans on the committee. In the reliably red state of Louisiana, which is firmly ensconced in the Bible Belt and where even some Democrats oppose abortions, adding exceptions to the near-total abortion ban has been an ongoing battle for advocates — with similar measures failing the last few years. Currently, of the 12 states enforcing abortion bans at all stages of pregnancy, four have exceptions in cases of rape. A study released by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that between July 2022 and January 2024, there were more than 64,000 pregnancies resulting from rape in states where abortion has been banned in all or most cases. Louisiana's abortion law went into effect in 2022 following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, ending a half-century of the nationwide right to abortion. The only exceptions to the ban are if there is substantial risk of death or impairment to the mother if she continues the pregnancy or in the case of 'medically futile' pregnancies — when the fetus has a fatal abnormality.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: What America's default risk is costing you
For decades, investors thought the risk of the US government defaulting on its debt was essentially zero. It was nice while it lasted. There's still a low chance the US government will fail to pay principal or interest on nearly $30 trillion worth of Treasury securities circulating around the world. But global investors think US debt is getting riskier, and they also think US policymakers in Congress and the Trump administration are doing nothing about it. That rising risk is likely pushing interest costs higher for every American borrowing to finance a home, a car, or a business investment. A new paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago uses an arcane security known as a credit default swap, or CDS, to estimate the risk of the US Treasury defaulting on a payment. The analysis highlights not just the damage caused by 15 years of political squabbling in Congress over budget issues but also the startling decline in market assessments of US creditworthiness. Congress may soon make this worse by passing a tax-cut bill that makes America's fiscal position even shakier. There are two basic market concerns with America's creditworthiness. One is the sheer amount of borrowing the US government must do to finance annual deficits that are now routinely close to $2 trillion. The total national debt is $36.2 trillion, and the amount of US debt in circulation now equals about 100% of GDP, a record for peacetime. That's only going higher. The other issue is the US debt ceiling, which puts a limit on the total amount of federal borrowing the Treasury is allowed to do. The debt limit itself isn't problematic. But Congress's handling of it is. Three times — in 2011, 2013, and 2023 — Congress has refused to raise the borrowing limit until the Treasury Department was dangerously close to running out of money. If the Treasury missed even a single payment it owed, it would constitute a default and roil the global trillion-dollar market for Treasury securities, the world's most widely traded assets. In January, the Treasury hit the debt limit once again. Since then, it has been relying on 'extraordinary measures' — basically, moving money around — to pay its bills. Congress must soon raise the debt limit once again, with the Treasury likely to run out of maneuvering room sometime between mid and late summer. Credit-default swaps are private contracts that work like an insurance policy, with one party agreeing to cover losses for a second party if the issuer of a given security defaults. The market for CDS contracts on government debt has been most active during debt crises in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Greece, and Italy. The market for CDSs guaranteeing US debt is often dormant. But it springs to life around the time that the US debt ceiling needs to be raised, because Congress could trigger a default by waiting too long. The Chicago Fed research uses data on CDS pricing to estimate the market's perception of the risk of US default going back 14 years. In 2011, the United States came within a few days of default before Democrats and Republicans sparring in Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling. That standoff led S&P to downgrade the US credit rating for the first time ever. The Chicago Fed paper estimates that the risk of default in 2011 peaked at more than than 6%. During debt-ceiling showdowns in 2013 and 2023, CDS pricing suggests the risk of default peaked at around 4%. CDS pricing today suggests the risk of a US default is around 1%. It's lower now than in prior standoffs because Republicans have unified control of Congress and don't need to negotiate with the opposition party to raise the borrowing limit. That 1% risk could also go higher as the Treasury comes closer to the "X date" when it runs out of money.A 1% risk of default might seem inconsequential. But it's not. 'Everyone says the US will never default,' David Kotok, co-founder of investing firm Cumberland Advisors, told Yahoo Finance. 'Somebody is saying, we don't believe you. The CDS market is saying the risk is greater than zero.' Kotok estimates that the higher perceived risk of default pushes the interest rate on a typical mortgage up by about three-tenths of a percentage point. That's because investors demand higher interest rates on riskier securities, such as the 10-year Treasury note, which is the benchmark for most interest rates paid on business and consumer loans. Read more: What is the 10-year Treasury note, and how does it affect your finances? On a 30-year mortgage for a median-priced house, lowering the interest rate by three-tenths of a point would lower the monthly payment by about $66. That's $792 per year or $23,769 over the course of the loan. Not a fortune, maybe, but shrewd investors welcome every marginal gain. Congress could eliminate the debt limit altogether by repealing the 1917 law that was supposed to simplify government borrowing, rather than creating a default mechanism. Back then, the executive branch needed congressional approval for every unique instance of borrowing. The debt limit was supposed to let the Treasury borrow freely up to a certain limit. That worked more or less as intended until 2011, when Republicans, who controlled the House of Representatives, used the debt ceiling as leverage to negotiate spending cuts with Democrats, who controlled the Senate and the White House. Repealing the debt limit might wipe out the market for credit default swaps on US debt, since debt limit deadlines are the very thing creating the default risk. Nobody would complain about that. Kotok estimates that the 30-basis-point premium on US interest rates would disappear. Then the US government would only face one debt problem: the vast amount of it. Markets have been jeering the mushrooming national debt this year, with investors showing unprecedented reluctance to buy some US assets. That has been another factor pushing US interest rates higher, when in normal market action, they'd be holding steady or falling. JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon is the latest voice of alarm on the US debt, warning that a 'crack' in the bond market could signal coming market turmoil. That would most likely occur as more investors shunned US assets, including Treasurys, sending rates even higher. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says Dimon is overreacting, giving cover to Republicans working up the big tax-cut bill that could add another $3 trillion or $4 trillion to the national debt. Moody's downgraded US debt for the first time in May following Fitch's first-ever downgrade in 2023. Like S&P in 2011, both rating agencies cited political dysfunction and huge annual deficits. The rumble of discontent with America's fiscal recklessness is growing louder. Eventually, they'll start to hear it in Washington, D.C. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The true cost of Trump's massive military parade seems to keep getting worse
Donald Trump's plans for a massive, expensive military parade in Washington, D.C., already seemed absurd when juxtaposed against his administration's mass firings at federal agencies and his plans to institute deep cuts to federal programs many Americans rely on. But the true cost of the parade seems to keep getting worse. The president recently told NBC News' Kristen Welker that the June 14 parade's price tag — which could reach $45 million — would be 'peanuts compared to the value of doing it.' But the actual value of hosting a parade — which, in a fashion reminiscent of dictatorships, will feature dozens of military vehicles and thousands of service members — is debatable at best. And NBC News reported recently on some of the destruction that the June 14 parade — a seemingly frivolous pet project to celebrate 250 years of the U.S. Army that just so happens to fall on Trump's birthday — stands to inflict on Washington's streets: The cost to repair Washington, D.C., streets after the upcoming military parade celebrating the Army's 250th anniversary could cost as much as $16 million, according to U.S. military officials. That's part of an estimated $45 million total cost for the June 14 military parade, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. The cost estimates have fluctuated as planning continues. And that's taxpayer money being spent as Trump withholds tens of millions of dollars allocated for things like climate change studies and other research grants, or any number of federal programs that stand to benefit a large number of Americans — certainly more so than a military parade. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has been sounding the alarm for months on the parade's potential destruction, saying in April that military tanks 'would not be good,' adding: 'If military tanks were used, they should be accompanied with many millions of dollars to repair the roads.' Republicans have been eager to use their federal power over Washington — due to it not being an official state — no matter what the mayor says. In March, Bowser said her decision to paint over a D.C. plaza honoring the Black Lives Matter movement came amid pressure from the White House, suggesting she had acquiesced because there are 'bigger fish to fry.' And now House Republicans — who have refused to address a $1 billion funding shortfall they created for the district — are trying to pass a law that would roll back voting rights in D.C. as well. All of this appears to be aligned with Trump's declaration that the federal government should 'take over' Washington, using language befitting the leader of an occupying military. And his massive, expensive and literally destructive military parade — all at taxpayers' expense — seems like it would be a crowning achievement in that mission. This article was originally published on
