WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump weighed in Friday on whether former First Lady Jill Biden should testify about her role in the cover-up of former President Joe Biden’s mental decline.

The president discussed the matter as he took questions from reporters in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon during a press conference with Elon Musk, who is closing out his time with the administration. The presser comes amidst heavy scrutiny of the coverup of Biden’s mental decline, particularly in light of a new book on how the White House sought to hide the president’s condition from the public.

Fox News’ Peter Doocey questioned the president about the topic, asking Trump: “Do you think that Dr. Jill Biden should also have to come in and testify about what she did or didn’t do?”

Trump responded, “Well, I hate the concept of it.”

“It’s the wife of a man who is going through a lot of problems, and everybody that dealt with him understood that,” Trump reflected. “And I guess it came out during the debate loud and clear, that was the biggest signal of all … they have to do what is right. There was a lot of dishonesty in the election as you know, of 2020, that’s been now caught. People understand it was a rigged election.”

.@pdoocy: “Do you think that Dr. Jill Biden should also have to come in and testify about what she did or didn’t do?”

President Trump: “Well, I hate the concept of it. It’s the wife of a man who is going through a lot of problems, and everybody that dealt with him understood… pic.twitter.com/GZiPJyvB4l

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) May 30, 2025

“And when you go further out, when you see the auto pen, I think the auto pen is going to become one of the great scandals of all time,” Trump added. “Because you have somebody operating it, or a number of people operating it … cause I knew Joe Biden. Joe Biden wasn’t in favor of opening up borders and letting 21 million people in, from prisons and mental institutions and gang members, he wasn’t into that at all.”

The president questioned: “Who signed these orders, proclamations, and all of these different things that he signed, that were so bad for our country?”

The question came after Republican Rep. James Comer of Kentucky suggested Wednesday that both Joe and Jill Biden could be subpoenaed to testify about Biden’s use of the autopen to sign official documents. He also suggested that the president’s former Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, could receive a subpoenas.

Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships

“Wherever the trail leads is where we’re going to bring them in,” Comer told Sean Hanity on Fox News. “And look, I would love to ask Joe Biden a lot of questions, but right now, we’re starting with the staffers who are operating the autopen.”

On Thursday at the White House press briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Jill Biden should “certainly” speak openly about her husband’s infirmities.

“I think, frankly, the former first lady should certainly speak up about what she saw in regards to her husband and when she saw it and what she knew,” Leavitt said, adding, “because I think anybody looking again at the videos and photo evidence of Joe Biden with your own eyes and a little bit of common sense can see this was a clear cover-up. Jill Biden was certainly complicit in that cover-up.”

“There’s documentation, video evidence of her clearly shielding her husband away from the cameras. They were just on ‘The View’ last week. She was saying everything is fine,” Leavitt told reporters. “She’s still lying to the American people. She still thinks the American public are so stupid that they’re going to believe her lies, and, frankly, it’s insulting and she needs to answer for it.”

Support among Republicans for gay marriage has plummeted in the last three years, according to a new Gallup poll.

Gallup’s poll released on Thursday found 41% of GOP voters support gay marriage, as opposed to 55% in 2021 and 2022. A whopping 88% of Democrats approved of gay marriage in the new poll; the 47-point gap between the two parties is the largest since Gallup first asked the question in 1996. Seventy-six percent of independents approve of gay marriage. In 1996, 16% of Republicans approved; 33% of Democrats and 32% of independents agreed.

86% of Democrats said gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable; 38% of Republicans agreed, a drop from 2022, when 56% of Republicans agreed. Among those who attend religious services at least once a week, 33% said same-sex marriage was morally acceptable and 24% said gay-lesbian relations were socially acceptable. Gallup polling between 2020-2023 found that more Republicans attended weekly religious services than Democrats by 15 percentage points.

When writing a concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made the legal case for overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges, the last of which guaranteed the right to gay marriage.

Thomas explained that the three cases relied on substantive due process, which he called “an oxymoron that lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.”

Courts have used substantive due process to protect unenumerated rights not mentioned in the Constitution. The right to privacy and the right to gay marriage have been recognized under substantive due process. 

“On the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas has long argued (consistent with much academic commentary) that insofar as the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates enumerated rights against the states and protects unenumerated rights, this work is done by the Privileges [and] Immunities Clause, and not the Due Process Clause,” Reason noted.

Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents, After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”

“Substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority,” he wrote, “Substantive due process distorts other areas of constitutional law. … Substantive due process is the core inspiration for many of the Court’s constitutionally unmoored policy judgments. … The harm caused by this Court’s forays into substantive due process remains immeasurable.”