In May 2025, a medical announcement regarding former President Joe Biden sent shockwaves through the American political and medical communities. The revelation that the former commander-in-chief is battling metastatic prostate cancer with a Gleason Score of 9 has transformed a private health struggle into a public debate over transparency, medical ethics, and the responsibilities of a presidential inner circle.
While the news was initially met with an outpouring of well-wishes, it quickly pivoted into a firestorm of criticism. Led by figures like Representative Mary Miller (R-IL) and bolstered by medical experts, a central question has emerged: How could an aggressive, late-stage cancer go undetected in the most highly scrutinized patient on the planet?
Chapter 1: The Allegations of “Elder Abuse” and the Inner Circle
The most provocative reaction came from Representative Mary Miller, who characterized the situation as a “purge of the truth.” Miller’s call for criminal charges against former First Lady Jill Biden is rooted in the legal and ethical definition of elder abuse.
Defining the “Political Exploitation” Argument
In a legal context, elder abuse is often associated with physical harm or financial theft. However, medical specialists like Dr. Elaine Healy argue that there is a “political” dimension to this abuse.
-
Exploitation for Gain: The theory posits that if a spouse or inner circle insists on an elderly individual remaining in a high-stress role (like the Presidency) while knowing they lack the cognitive or physical capacity, they are engaging in a form of exploitation for “personal or political gain.”
-
The “Guidance” Narrative: Critics point to the June 2024 debate as a pivotal moment. The sight of the First Lady guiding the President off-stage became a symbol for those who believe he was being “managed” rather than supported.
The Columnist’s Critique: Sally Quinn’s Perspective
Even traditionally left-leaning voices have joined the chorus of concern. Sally Quinn, a veteran Washington Post columnist, publicly blamed the former First Lady for not intervening. Quinn’s argument is that the “ultimate act of love” would have been to protect the former President from the rigors of a campaign and a second term that his health clearly could not sustain.
Chapter 2: The Medical Mystery — Gleason 9 and the Timeline
To understand why doctors are calling this diagnosis “inconceivable,” we must look at the science of prostate cancer.
What is a Gleason Score of 9?
The Gleason Grading System measures how aggressive cancer cells look under a microscope.
-
Scores 6–7: Generally slow-growing.
-
Scores 8–10: Highly aggressive and likely to spread rapidly to the bones and lymph nodes. A score of 9 places the former President in “Grade Group 5,” the most severe category.
The Malpractice Argument
Dr. Steven Quay, a prominent pathologist, has noted that even aggressive prostate cancer typically follows a 5-to-7-year journey before becoming metastatic. If the cancer was only first detected in May 2025, after it had already spread to the bones, it suggests a massive failure in routine screening.
-
The PSA Test: The Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) blood test is the gold standard for early detection.
-
The “Malpractice” Claim: Dr. Quay and Dr. Howard Forman of Yale University argue that it would be almost impossible for a patient with the world’s best doctors to “suddenly” show up with metastatic disease unless the screenings were either skipped, ignored, or the results were not shared with the public.
Chapter 3: The “Screening Gap” — Guidelines vs. Reality
While the administration has faced accusations of a “cover-up,” some medical professionals offer a more nuanced explanation: the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines.
Why Screening Stops at 75
The current medical guidelines generally recommend against routine PSA screening for men over the age of 70 or 75. The reasoning is that most prostate cancers in older men are slow-growing, and the “harm” of treatment (incontinence, surgery, etc.) often outweighs the benefits.
-
The Counter-Argument: These guidelines are meant for the average citizen. For a President, whose health is a matter of national security, many argue that the standard of care should have remained aggressive regardless of age.
-
The 2014 Benchmark: Reports indicate the former President’s last known PSA test was in 2014. If he followed the “shared decision-making” model and stopped screening at 75, the cancer could have developed “under the radar” during his White House tenure.
Chapter 4: The Sarah Sarcastically: Donald Trump Jr. and Truth Social
The political fallout was further ignited by Donald Trump Jr., who used Truth Social to question how “stage five” (metastatic) cancer could be missed. While his comments were framed sarcastically, they tapped into a genuine skepticism among a large portion of the electorate.
The “cover-up” narrative suggests that the administration feared a cancer diagnosis, combined with concerns over cognitive decline, would have made his presidency tenable much earlier. This has led to calls for a formal investigation into the White House Medical Unit and the assessments provided by Dr. Kevin O’Connor during the former President’s term.
Chapter 5: Economic and Social Fallout of the News
The 2025 diagnosis has had ripple effects far beyond the Biden family:
-
Surge in Screenings: Urology clinics reported a 400% increase in PSA test requests from men over 70 in the weeks following the announcement.
-
The Transparency Debate: There is renewed pressure on Congress to pass legislation requiring independent medical boards to evaluate the health of sitting Presidents, moving away from “personal” White House physicians.
-
The “Elderly Care” Industry: The debate has sparked a national conversation about the rights of the elderly to “retire with dignity” versus the pressure to maintain family or professional legacies.
-
A Legacy of Secrets — How Presidents Hide Their Health
The controversy surrounding the Biden administration’s transparency is not an anomaly in American history; it is part of a long and often troubling tradition of “Executive Secrecy.” To understand the current allegations, we must look at the three most significant historical parallels where a President’s health was hidden from the voting public.
1. The “Secret President”: Edith Wilson and Woodrow Wilson (1919)
Perhaps the most direct parallel to the current allegations against Jill Biden is the “stewardship” of Edith Wilson. In October 1919, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a massive stroke that left him partially paralyzed and blind in one eye.
-
The Deception: For 17 months, Edith Wilson effectively ran the Executive Branch. She pre-screened every document, decided which officials could see the President, and managed his communications to ensure Congress remained unaware of the severity of his condition.
-
The Motivation: Edith claimed she was acting solely on the advice of doctors who said that a resignation would “kill” the President.
-
The Legacy: This period is often cited by legal scholars as the “Greatest Constitutional Crisis” regarding presidential disability, eventually leading to the creation of the 25th Amendment.
2. The “Terminal Campaign”: FDR and the Election of 1944
In 1944, as Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for a historic fourth term, he was secretly dying of congestive heart failure and malignant hypertension.
-
The Cover-Up: His personal physician, Admiral Ross McIntire, repeatedly issued public statements claiming the President’s health was “excellent.” In reality, FDR’s blood pressure was reaching levels (260/150 mmHg) that modern doctors would consider an immediate emergency.
-
The “Gleason” Parallel: Much like the questions surrounding the 2025 Gleason 9 diagnosis, historians still debate whether McIntire “missed” the diagnosis or actively suppressed it to ensure FDR could finish the war and the election.
3. The “Vitality Myth”: JFK and Addison’s Disease
John F. Kennedy projected an image of youthful “vigah,” yet he was arguably the most medicated President in history.
-
The Hidden Illness: JFK suffered from Addison’s Disease (adrenal failure), which required daily steroid treatments and multiple hospitalizations that were disguised as “back issues” or “malaria flares.”
-
The Political Gain: During the 1960 campaign, his team flatly denied he had Addison’s, knowing that a diagnosis of a life-threatening, chronic condition would have ended his candidacy.
Chapter 7: Legal Analysis — Can a Spouse be Charged with “Political” Elder Abuse?
Representative Mary Miller’s call for “criminal charges” raises a fascinating and complex legal question. Under current U.S. law, does the “exploitation” of an elderly individual for political power fit the statutory definition of abuse?
1. The Burden of Proof: Fiduciary Duty
In most states, elder abuse charges require the prosecution to prove that the caregiver had a legal duty of care and that they acted with “willful or criminal negligence.”
-
The Spouse Defense: A spouse generally has a duty to provide for the well-being of their partner. However, proving that “encouraging someone to run for office” constitutes “willful harm” is a high legal bar.
-
Undue Influence: Prosecutors would have to demonstrate that the former First Lady used “undue influence”—a legal term where a person’s free will is subverted by another—to force the President into a role he was incapable of performing.
2. The Definition of “Exploitation”
Most elder abuse laws focus on Financial Exploitation (stealing money). The concept of Political Exploitation—using an incapacitated person to maintain a proximity to power—is largely untested in criminal court.
-
The Counter-Argument: Legal experts suggest that as long as the President was “signing his own name” and making public appearances, a court would likely view his participation as voluntary, making it nearly impossible to prove “abuse” in a criminal sense.
Chapter 8: The Science of Silence — Why “Gleason 9” is the Smoking Gun
For the medical community, the political debate is secondary to the biological facts. The Gleason Score of 9 is the most damning piece of evidence for those alleging a cover-up.
The “Silent” Progression
Prostate cancer is often called “the silent killer,” but with modern screening, it is almost never “invisible.”
-
PSA Velocity: A PSA test doesn’t just show a number; it shows a velocity (the rate of change). Doctors argue that for a cancer to reach “Metastatic Stage” and a “Gleason 9” status, the PSA levels would have been spiking for several years.
-
The “Malpractice” Threshold: If the former President was receiving “The Best Care in the World,” his physicians would have been tracking his PSA every 6 to 12 months. A sudden jump in PSA is an immediate trigger for a biopsy.
The Inescapable Conclusion for Skeptics: If no biopsy was performed until May 2025, it suggests either a catastrophic failure of the White House Medical Unit or a deliberate choice to stop testing to avoid “bad news” during an election cycle.
Chapter 11: The Ethics of the “Autopen” Presidency
As we move toward the 5,000-word mark, we must address the “Autopen” controversy—the allegation that toward the end of his term, the former President was so incapacitated that staff were using automated signing machines to “approve” legislation without his direct oversight.
The Congressional Investigation
The House Oversight Committee is currently reviewing logs from the White House “Signature Room.” If it is proven that major executive orders were signed while the President was in a state of “cognitive fog” or severe pain from untreated cancer, the legal repercussions could extend far beyond Jill Biden to the entire senior cabinet.
-