Ian Sams, the former White House spokesman who once publicly defended then-President Joe Biden’s mental fitness, is now facing serious questions after testimony before the House Oversight Committee reportedly revealed a different story from the one he gave the American people.
Sams became a familiar face during Biden’s presidency, frequently appearing on cable news to push back on concerns over the president’s age and mental clarity. In June 2024, following Biden’s highly criticized debate performance against then-candidate Donald Trump, Sams went on MSNBC and insisted Biden was sharp, focused, and fully capable. His message was clear: Biden’s shaky performance on stage was a one-time thing and not a reflection of his true abilities.
“That’s the President Biden that so many of us experience every single day,” Sams told host Nicolle Wallace, referencing a speech Biden gave shortly after the debate on the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. Sams claimed Biden was engaged, asked tough questions, and displayed strong leadership behind the scenes. He repeated the phrase “sharp” multiple times, reinforcing a picture of a president in command of his office.
Biden spokesman Ian Sams denies Biden’s obvious cognitive decline: “He’s sharp! He’s asking tough questions!” pic.twitter.com/wC3KbworKZ
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 2, 2024
But when Sams sat down for a closed-door, transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee in August 2025, his version of events began to shift. Lawmakers pressed him on how often he had actually interacted with President Biden during his two years in the White House. According to the transcript, Sams admitted that he only had “three or four” interactions with Biden—and just two of those were in person.
This stood in direct contrast to his media appearances, where he had implied he observed Biden’s sharpness “every single day.” That raised alarms among lawmakers, including Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, who later said Sams’ statements suggested a wider effort within the administration to shape a narrative that did not align with reality.
Sams defended his earlier remarks under questioning, saying he believed his description was still accurate, based on the few interactions he had. “I think it was pretty direct and honest,” he said. “When I do deal with him, he’s, you know, sharp and he was asking incisive questions.”
But critics weren’t buying it. After the interview transcript was reviewed, the Oversight Committee posted a summary of Sams’ statements to X, formerly known as Twitter, accusing him of misleading the public. “Ian Sams, one of Joe Biden’s spokespersons, met with him only TWICE in over TWO YEARS,” the committee wrote. “Then he would go on live television and say he interacted with him EVERY SINGLE DAY. He was LYING to the American people to cover up for Biden’s decline.”
jkl;’
WATCH: Ian Sams, one of Joe Biden’s spokespersons, met with him only TWICE in over TWO YEARS.
Then he would go on live television and say he interacted with him EVERY SINGLE DAY.
He was LYING to the American people to cover up for Biden’s decline. pic.twitter.com/9BDXKWhyUw
— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) October 29, 2025
Whether Sams’ statements amount to a coordinated effort to shield concerns about Biden’s mental fitness or are simply the result of poor messaging remains unclear. But the testimony has led to more questions about who had regular access to President Biden and who was actually making key decisions in the White House during his final year in office.
Chairman Comer pointed to the bigger issue during a press briefing in August. “It raises serious concerns and serious questions about who was calling shots at the White House,” Comer said. “If the White House spokesperson was being shielded from the president of the United States, who was operating the Oval Office?”
That’s a question lawmakers on the committee say they are still working to answer. Meanwhile, critics of the Biden administration point to the Sams testimony as part of a larger pattern of top officials allegedly portraying a version of events that may not have lined up with internal realities. As the investigation continues, many are watching to see if more witnesses come forward with details that could shed light on how information about the president’s condition was handled inside the White House.
