Vance Comments On Biden Report
In the wake of the Sunday revelation that former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer—with a Gleason score of 9 and metastasis to the bone—an already polarized political climate has been jolted by a rush of sympathy, speculation, and scrutiny.
The severity of the diagnosis not only raised medical concerns but also intensified long-simmering debates over transparency, competence, and trust in public office.
Biden’s diagnosis, made public through a statement from his personal office, immediately prompted questions that stretch beyond the confines of medical privacy. Namely: how long had this condition been known? Given the disease’s advanced stage, and considering routine PSA screening recommendations for men over 55, it’s reasonable to ask whether earlier detection might have been possible—and more importantly, whether those results were ever withheld from the public eye.
.@VP JD Vance on former President Biden’s cancer diagnosis: “We really do need to be honest about whether the former president was capable of doing the job…I don’t think that he was in good enough health. In some ways, I blame him less than I blame the people around him.” pic.twitter.com/0DYOd2mu4G
— CSPAN (@cspan) May 19, 2025
Former Obama advisor David Axelrod urged a pause in political criticism, suggesting the nation give space for Biden to battle his diagnosis. But in the realm of governance, such a pause is neither practical nor necessarily warranted. Vice President JD Vance, notably, struck a balance that many found compelling: expressing hope for Biden’s recovery while also pressing the essential question of fitness and accountability.
Vance was clear in his remarks: “You can separate the desire for him to have the right health outcome with the recognition that… I don’t think he was able to do a good job for the American people.” This is not political mudslinging—it’s a demand for clarity. When the presidency is at stake, questions of cognitive function, decision-making, and physical endurance are not abstract. They are urgent, real, and consequential.
Nope. If anything, I have *more* questions about what was known and what was hidden from the public. https://t.co/DohCeem9dV
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) May 19, 2025
His most stinging indictment, however, wasn’t reserved for Biden himself. It was directed toward the staff and advisors surrounding him. “Why didn’t the American people have a better sense of his health picture?” Vance asked. “Why didn’t the American people have more accurate information about what he was actually dealing with?” These are not idle questions. They cut to the heart of democratic accountability.
Calls to mute criticism on the grounds of compassion are understandable—but potentially dangerous. Transparency is not an optional virtue in public office. If, as some suspect, there were efforts to obscure Biden’s health issues—whether for political expediency or to maintain the image of stability—those decisions deserve investigation and full public disclosure. The American people are not simply spectators. They are stakeholders.