A recent Washington Free Beacon report relays stark assessments from physicians and former White House medical staff about President Joe Biden’s health following the announcement that he has metastatic, Stage 4 prostate cancer. Biden’s office surprised the public by upgrading what had been described as a “small nodule” to a diagnosis that has spread to his bones. Representative Ronny Jackson, a physician who served as White House doctor from 2013 to 2018 and who has examined Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, told the Free Beacon that after speaking with multiple urologists he believes the prognosis is “bleak,” estimating a likely survival window of roughly 12 to 18 months. Jackson emphasized that while he hoped treatments would extend Biden’s life, the disease was “far advanced,” framing his remarks as the consensus view of specialists he consulted.

Jackson also raised the possibility that Biden or his medical team may have known about cancer earlier than the May public disclosure. Drawing on his experience routinely checking prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in previous presidents, Jackson said annual screening is common in the White House medical practice and suggested it would be “absolutely conceivable” that a prostate cancer diagnosis could have been made and treated on an outpatient basis without public knowledge. He pointed out that typical prostate cancer treatments such as radiation can be administered without inpatient stays, allowing a public figure and their family and physicians to withhold details from the public if they chose. Jackson urged ongoing, aggressive screening for public officials in similar positions, framing transparency and routine checks as matters of public interest.

The Free Beacon piece also catalogues growing scrutiny from other former White House medical figures. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as President Barack Obama’s doctor, criticized the absence of cognitive testing in Biden’s most recent public health documentation. He said that, given Biden’s age at the time — 81 during the February 2024 evaluation led by White House physician Kevin O’Connor — neuropsychological assessment would have been appropriate and informative for voters. Kuhlman argued that health evaluations for public officials should encompass “fitness” broadly defined — not only physical health but cognitive and emotional readiness for the demands of the presidency. He asserted that cognitive testing would have provided a clearer picture of Biden’s suitability for another term and implied that its omission left unanswered questions for the electorate.

The February 2024 medical report by Kevin O’Connor, which was released while Biden was still president, did not mention neuropsychological testing, and the Free Beacon cites that omission in reporting concerns from Kuhlman and others. The article references discussions among medical professionals who contend that routine cognitive screening in older presidential candidates and officeholders is a reasonable expectation, especially when neurological concerns have been raised. The piece further notes that O’Connor had reportedly hesitated to administer cognitive testing despite referrals or evaluations by neurologists for issues such as Parkinsonian symptoms. That hesitation, according to critics quoted in the article, contributed to public uncertainty about Biden’s overall cognitive and physical fitness for the job.

Adding to the portrait of concern, the report draws on a recently published book by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, which compiles interviews with dozens of Democratic insiders following the 2024 election. According to the book’s depiction, those interviewed described Biden as “well-meaning but wounded,” and cited episodes of forgetfulness, incoherence, and exhaustion. The book further alleges that Biden’s physician, O’Connor, was reluctant to proceed with cognitive testing even after neurological evaluations, a detail used in the Free Beacon report to underscore questions about transparency and medical decision-making at the highest levels of government. Those characterizations, from both the book and the former medical figures, serve in the article to build a narrative that medical and political insiders have been increasingly worried about Biden’s health and capacity.

The Free Beacon piece closes with coverage of Biden’s public demeanor when pressed by reporters about his health and his decision to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race. At a Memorial Day event, when questioned about the reports and the book, Biden replied with a sarcastic remark: “You can see that I’m mentally incompetent, and I can’t walk, and I can beat the hell out of both of them,” apparently targeting the authors, Tapper and Thompson. The article juxtaposes that defiant public retort with the private medical arguments made by Jackson, Kuhlman, and cited specialists who suggested a limited prognosis and raised concerns about whether the public had been adequately informed. Throughout, the Free Beacon frames these medical assertions and partisan critiques as significant developments in the conversation about presidential health and transparency, leaving readers with competing accounts from physicians, journalists, and the president himself.