Ex-Biden aide says memory, decision-making declined in office, calls for cognitive test
Jeff Zients testifies to House Oversight Committee that Biden’s memory worsened and recommends cognitive evaluation after debate, per sources familiar with testimony.
WASHINGTON — Former White House chief of staff Jeff Zients told the House Oversight Committee in a transcribed interview provided to Congress that President Joe Biden’s memory and decision-making appeared to deteriorate during his time in office, according to people familiar with the testimony. The disclosure adds to a long-running discourse inside Washington about the president’s fitness for a second term and how the White House would handle any health concerns.
In the interview, Zients said he urged White House physician Kevin O’Connor to order a full medical workup for Biden, including a cognitive exam, after the June 27, 2024, debate against Donald Trump. The debate, described by multiple aides and observers, included the president stumbling over words, speaking with a soft, raspy voice, and delivering non-sequiturs about public policy — including a claim that his administration had “finally beat Medicare.” Biden’s campaign and White House aides at the time attributed the fumbles to a cold, and he was seen at a Waffle House shortly after the debate. Zients described the mental freezes he said aides observed as unprecedented.
A second source familiar with Zients’ testimony said the former chief of staff’s role was to coordinate among advisers to ensure the president could thoroughly consider issues before deciding. The interview also touched on broader concerns among some current and former officials about Biden’s age and stamina. Anita Dunn, a former senior White House communications adviser, and Jake Sullivan, the former national security adviser, reportedly stressed the importance of a cognitive evaluation. By contrast, some Cabinet officials — including Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken — were described as more skeptical that Biden could safely pursue a second term. Donors expressed alarm in private discussions, with at least one noting concerns about the president’s use of a teleprompter at a campaign fundraising event.
Zients’ testimony also emphasized that Biden’s cognitive issues, if present, extended beyond a single moment. The sources said the president began having difficulty remembering dates and names, and that decisions that once required three meetings began to require a fourth. The West Wing throughout Biden’s term reportedly grappled with age-related issues, including Jill Biden’s requests that her husband not be over-scheduled and that he return to the residence earlier in the day to rest. The dynamics underscored the broader debate inside the administration about how to balance effective leadership with the realities of aging for the nation’s leader.
The Oversight Committee has already questioned other aides in connection with related inquiries. Karine Jean-Pierre, Biden’s former White House press secretary, has indicated she will publish a tell-all book about her time in the administration, and she previously testified about various internal concerns. In the current session, O’Connor and Jill Biden’s chief of staff Anthony Bernal both invoked the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer questions about the president’s health and age issues, according to the first source. Deputy White House Chief of Staff Annie Tomasini also invoked the Fifth and told Zients that staff should limit walking distances and the number of stairs the president needed to climb, the same source said. Robert Kelner, Zients’ attorney, did not respond to requests for comment.
The committee’s review, part of broader congressional oversight into the administration’s processes and the use of executive tools, remains ongoing. While the notes describe concerns among some aides and donors, they also stress that the president’s ultimate decisions rested with Biden himself, with aides providing input rather than final authority. The evolving narrative has fed into a broader political dialogue about how the White House evaluates health, cognitive function, and the feasibility of serving a second term, especially after a high-stakes public performance.
As the proceedings continued, the panel pressed aides on the extent to which medical assessments were considered and how much weight should be given to perceived lapses in memory or speech during engagements with voters. The interviews and testimonies also illustrate how intra-White House discussions about health and age have evolved from private concerns to matters of public record, shaping the political calculus ahead of the next election cycle. While some former officials expressed caution about the president’s capacity for another term, others emphasized that Biden would be evaluated on a broad set of competencies and accomplishments from his four years in office.
Images accompanying the coverage show a range of moments from the legislative and executive branches as they navigate questions about governance, health, and succession. The discussion around cognitive health remains a sensitive and often contested part of national political discourse, with party lines sometimes influencing how people interpret the same set of facts.
The meeting and subsequent testimony come as the Oversight Committee continues its scrutiny of executive authority, administrative processes, and contingency planning for the presidency. The proceedings also reflect broader debates across Washington about how best to assess and respond to health-related questions about the nation’s commander in chief, balancing transparency with the need to avoid unnecessary political speculation. While the individuals cited in the interviews offered differing views on Biden’s viability for a second term, the underlying thread is a call for thorough medical evaluation and a careful consideration of how health intersects with governance at the highest levels of government.
