Background of the Incident
• Date and Order: On June 4, 2025, Donald Trump issued a presidential order instructing an official inquiry into the current President Joe Biden’s mental fitness.
• Agencies Responsible for the Investigation: White House Advisor David Warrington and Attorney General Pam Bondi have been tasked with carrying out this investigation.
Summary of Trump’s Allegations
• Concealing Mental Weakness: Trump claims that Biden’s close associates hid the former president’s mental frailty from the media instead of disclosing it.
• Signature Scandal via AutoPen: He alleges that those responsible used AutoPen (electronic signature) on Biden’s documents, thereby “irresponsibly” exercising presidential power.
• Misuse of Executive Authority: Trump asserts that members of Biden’s team improperly wielded the president’s authority, in violation of the Constitution.
Biden’s Reply
• Calling It “Absurd”: 82-year-old Joe Biden has dismissed all accusations as baseless, stating that the entire process is simply a diversion from a tax-increase bill.
• Legitimacy of AutoPen: Biden’s office has explained that AutoPen has long been recognized as a valid method of signing documents in the United States. Federal courts have consistently accepted AutoPen signatures as lawful.
• Orders Issued Under His Own Authority: Biden clarified that during his administration, every executive order, bill signing, or pardon was personally authorized by him—no one else signed those documents on his behalf.
Political Context
• 2024 Campaign Rhetoric: During the 2024 election campaign, Trump repeatedly labeled Biden “mentally unfit,” arguing he was unqualified for the presidency—an accusation many viewed as politically motivated.
• Controversial Public Appearances: In several televised debates and interviews, Biden’s weaker speech delivery raised public questions about his cognitive abilities. Some analysts interpreted this as evidence of mental decline and cited it when advising him to limit public engagements.
• Reciprocal Claims of Retaliation: Biden has characterized his 2020 election defeat as Trump’s “fraud.” Trump, in turn, has repeatedly alleged election rigging. Against this backdrop of mutual accusations, many see this new inquiry as an act of political revenge.
Analysis
1. Question of Judicial Credibility vs. Political Revenge:
• Trump argues, “Biden’s aides have lied to the public,” but Biden’s supporters counter that this inquiry is merely a united campaign tactic. The key question remains: will this be a genuine judicial investigation or purely political theater?
Critics point out that the AutoPen allegation is unfounded, since AutoPen is widely accepted as a legitimate signing method in many government offices. U.S. courts have long recognized its legality. Therefore, it is essential for the judiciary to scrutinize whether these accusations lack any substantive basis.
2. Public Distrust and Democratic Impact:
• Opponents contend that, by disseminating rumors about Biden’s mental unfitness, Trump’s team is sowing confusion among voters. This could influence the electorate’s decisions during an election year.
Conversely, Biden’s supporters argue, “Trump is not presenting any new evidence,” and that this initiative stems solely from personal vendettas and political spite.
3. A Sham or a Real Investigation?
• During previous campaigns, Trump attempted to use similar “mentally unfit” allegations to influence election outcomes. Now, he revives the same tactic, leading many to question whether this is a legitimate judicial process or just sensationalism.
However, if genuine confidential documents or internal reports surface proving Biden’s mental weakness, they should be released for the sake of democratic transparency—even though no such evidence has appeared thus far.
Conclusion
The critical question now is how the Supreme Court or a federal court will rule on Trump’s order. Considering Biden’s administration’s arguments—particularly regarding the accepted legality of AutoPen—it is clear that, without credible evidence, the “mentally unfit” claim is primarily a political maneuver. In any democratic society, the final verdict will depend on judicial examination and the strength of the arguments presented by both sides.
