Biden’s White House Faces Crisis as Lawmakers Demand Answers on Who Ran the Country

The House Oversight Committee has formally requested testimony from four senior Biden White House aides as part of an investigation into what some Republicans are calling a deliberate effort to conceal President Biden’s alleged cognitive decline.

According to the New York Post, former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, her deputy Andrew Bates, former chief of staff Jeff Zients, and former counsel’s office spokesman Ian Sams have all been asked to appear before the committee for questioning.

“President Biden’s inner circle repeatedly told the American people that he was ‘sharp as ever,’ dismissing any commentary about his obvious mental decline as ‘gratuitous,’” said Chairman James Comer (R-Kentucky).

“They fed these false talking points to progressive allies and the media, who helped perpetuate that President Biden was fit to serve,” Comer continued, emphasizing the need to speak directly with those who allegedly aided in covering up the president’s condition.

Jean-Pierre, now the author of a forthcoming memoir reportedly critical of the administration, is among the most high-profile figures summoned.

Zients, who served as Biden’s final chief of staff, was also named. The panel has already spoken with Neera Tanden, a former domestic policy adviser who revealed she had limited contact with the president and relied on other aides to relay his instructions, raising further concerns about who was truly calling the shots.

One figure central to the investigation is Anthony Bernal, a longtime Biden aide currently leading the president’s post-administration transition office.

He had agreed to appear voluntarily but later backed out, prompting Comer to issue a subpoena. Bernal is reportedly very close to the First Lady and once referred to as her “work husband.”

The committee’s inquiry is closely tied to growing scrutiny over Biden’s use of an autopen to authorize official documents.

According to Law Enforcement Today, this concern has now reached the Department of Justice, which has launched a formal investigation into whether Biden was fully aware of the actions taken in his name using the device.

While the autopen itself is not a new or illegal tool with past presidents, including Trump, having used it, what makes this case different is the context. Critics argue that if Biden was mentally unfit to authorize these actions, the use of the autopen may point to a deeper issue of executive overreach or manipulation.

DOJ investigators are reportedly focused on pardons and clemency issued during the final days of the administration, including those involving Biden’s son, Hunter, and several other family members.

The Biden White House has faced additional criticism over its handling of law enforcement policy. In a major reversal, the Department of Justice recently announced it will begin dismissing several Biden-era lawsuits filed against police departments, including in Minneapolis and Louisville.

These suits accused officers of systemic misconduct, but DOJ officials under the Trump-aligned leadership now argue they were based on flawed data and unsupported legal theories.

According to the DOJ, many of the sweeping consent decrees imposed during the Biden administration were not only costly (averaging $10 million per year per city) but also largely ineffective.

In the words of Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, they “divest local control of policing from communities where it belongs” and place it in the hands of “unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.”

As investigations into Biden’s mental acuity and decision-making authority intensify, these policy reversals suggest a broader reckoning is underway. If the president was not fully in command, lawmakers and the public alike are asking: who was?

In light of these developments, questions remain not just about the fitness of the president, but also about the legitimacy of executive actions taken under his name. For law enforcement agencies nationwide, it could mean a shift away from federally imposed mandates and a renewed emphasis on local control and accountability.