Role: Chief of Staff to First Lady Jill Biden (2021–2025)
Status: Left government service January 2025. Invoked the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight Committee. Referred to the DOJ by Chairman Comer (October 2025).
Prior role: Longtime Jill Biden aide and personal adviser

Priority: P2

Tracked Activities: Served as intermediary between the Biden family and senior White House officials; part of the “loyalty police” controlling access to the president; invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked if any unelected official or family member executed the duties of the president; referred to DOJ by House Oversight Committee.

Basis for Inclusion Subject classification: Non-Elected Government Official — Chief of Staff to the First Lady, White House Role at time of documented conduct: Chief of Staff to First Lady Jill Biden (2021–2025) This profile documents conduct in an official government capacity. Bernal held a government position that gave him unique access to both the president and First Lady. Multiple insiders identified him — alongside Annie Tomasini — as a central gatekeeper who restricted contact with the president. His Fifth Amendment invocation was in response to a question about whether unelected officials or family members exercised presidential authority. What is political vs. potentially criminal: Serving as a loyal aide to the First Lady and protecting the First Family’s privacy is political conduct — it is not criminal. The question raised by the investigation is whether Bernal participated in or facilitated the exercise of presidential authority by people other than the president — which could implicate constitutional separation-of-powers concerns. No criminal charge has been filed. The Fifth Amendment invocation does not establish criminal conduct. Investigation context: The House Oversight investigation was politically motivated — conducted by the Republican majority to challenge Biden-era executive actions and generate referrals to the Trump DOJ. The Trump DOJ is extensively documented by Patriot University as weaponized for retributive prosecution. Bernal’s Fifth Amendment invocation may reflect legitimate legal caution rather than consciousness of guilt. Protected speech note: None of Bernal’s documented conduct involves protected speech.

Background

Anthony Bernal is a longtime personal aide to Jill Biden who served as her Chief of Staff throughout the Biden presidency. He was described by insiders in “Original Sin” as “fiercely protective” of the Bidens. Along with Annie Tomasini, he reportedly served as an intermediary between the Biden family and senior White House officials.

The National Pulse reported that Bernal, Tomasini, and aide Ashley Williams “served as intermediaries between Joe and Jill Biden and senior White House officials, effectively shielding the octogenarian Democrat from his own cabinet.”

Staff described Bernal and Tomasini as the “loyalty police” who would screen other White House staff for personal loyalty to the Bidens, with the question: “Are you a Biden person?”

Documented Actions

1. Gatekeeper Role — Intermediary Between Biden Family and Government

Multiple sources document that Bernal functioned as a key node in the information flow between the Biden family (particularly Jill Biden) and the government apparatus. His position as First Lady’s Chief of Staff gave him:

• Direct access to both the president and First Lady
• Ability to filter what information reached the Biden family
• Influence over who had access to the president during non-official hours

This placed him at the center of the access-restriction apparatus that cabinet members described as deliberately keeping them away from the president in 2023-2024.

What this establishes (political conduct): Bernal served as a gatekeeper. This is a normal function of senior White House staff. Whether it crossed from protection into concealment is the unresolved question.

Source: “Original Sin” (Tapper/Thompson, 2025); The National Pulse, May 2025; House Oversight Committee report.

2. Fifth Amendment Invocation — The Critical Question

Bernal appeared before the House Oversight Committee and invoked the Fifth Amendment. The specific question he refused to answer was:

“Did any unelected official or family members execute the duties of the president?”

This is arguably the most consequential unanswered question from the entire investigation. If unelected officials or family members were exercising presidential authority — signing documents, making decisions, directing policy — during periods when Biden was unable to do so himself, it would represent a constitutional crisis: the effective operation of an unelected government in violation of the Constitution’s vesting of executive power in the president alone.

Critical context: Bernal’s refusal to answer does not establish that this occurred. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination — not against embarrassment or political damage. Its invocation in response to this specific question means only that Bernal’s attorneys determined that answering truthfully (in either direction) could expose him to criminal liability in the context of the pending DOJ investigation.

The pending Trump DOJ investigation is itself a potential tool of political weaponization. Any answer Bernal gave could be used by the Bondi DOJ regardless of its content. This creates a situation where legitimate legal protection and potential cover-up become indistinguishable from the outside.

Source: House Oversight Committee, “The Biden Autopen Presidency,” October 2025; Wikisource transcription of committee report.

3. DOJ Referral

Bernal was referred to AG Bondi’s DOJ alongside O’Connor and Tomasini. The committee stated it was “unable to determine the totality of actions taken by Bernal and Tomasini to conceal President Biden’s decline.”

Context: See repeated caveat about the weaponization risk of referrals from Republican committee chairs to the Trump DOJ.

Salience for Patriot University

Bernal’s profile raises the most fundamental constitutional question in the Biden decline matter: Who was exercising presidential authority? The Constitution vests executive power in the president. If that power was being exercised by unelected aides or family members, it represents a form of governance without democratic legitimacy — regardless of whether those individuals were well-intentioned.

This is distinct from the question of whether Biden was “fit” in a general sense. A president who is cognitively limited but makes his own decisions is constitutionally legitimate. A government run by unelected staff who make decisions in the president’s name is not — regardless of policy outcomes.

The fact that we do not know the answer to this question — because the witness who could answer it invoked the Fifth in the face of a politically weaponized DOJ — is itself a governance failure. Future reform should ensure that constitutional fitness questions can be investigated without being weaponized by the successor administration.

Factual correction requests: If you believe information in this profile is incorrect, please contact factcheck@patriot.university with your name (optional), the specific claim, and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.

Sources

1. House Oversight Committee, “The Biden Autopen Presidency,” October 24, 2025. https://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-committee-releases-report-on-the-biden-autopen-presidency/

1. “Original Sin” by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson (Random House, May 2025).

1. The National Pulse, “REVEALED: ‘Politburo’ of Aides That Controlled Biden White House,” May 27, 2025. https://thenationalpulse.com/2025/05/27/revealed-politburo-of-aides-that-controlled-biden-white-house/