Biden's handlers scrambled to change his personal number after journalist reached him on his cell, new book claims
In '2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,' New York Times reporter Tyler Pager described how he reached out directly to Biden on his cell phone in March to see if he would be willing to be interviewed for the book, which he co-authored alongside reporters Josh Dawsey and Isaac Arnsdorf.
Biden reportedly picked up and said he would be available to speak with Pager the next day. He answered a few questions the following morning before he had to cut the conversation short to catch a train.
Biden told Pager he had a 'very negative' view of President Donald Trump's second term and didn't 'see anything he's done that's been productive.' He also said he didn't regret dropping out of the 2024 race.
'No, not now. I don't spend a lot of time on regrets,' he told Pager before hanging up to get on the train.
3 US President Joe Biden takes a phone call as he walks to board Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 16, 2024.
AFP via Getty Images
After the first call, Pager was flooded with calls and text messages from Biden aides, who were 'freaking out' that he had obtained the president's personal number, he told podcast host Kara Swisher on Monday.
After the interview, the reporter soon discovered his own number had been blocked by Biden's team. Two days later, Biden's number had been disconnected.
'This is why they lost,' Swisher said in response to Pager's story.
A spokesperson for Biden did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
3 Tyler Pager shares details of a call with Joe Biden during the On with Kara Swisher podcast.
On with Kara Swisher
The book's revelations mirror those in others released this year about the 2024 election and the Biden presidency, which detail his alleged mental deterioration in office and how his inner circle fiercely protected him from the media.
'2024' follows Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's book, 'Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,' released in May; 'Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House,' by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes; and 'Uncharted: How Trump Beat Biden, Harris, and the Odds in the Wildest Campaign in History' by Chris Whipple, both released in April.
3 Joe Biden seen leaving hot spot Nobu in Malibu after sushi dinner with son Hunter, grandson and others. 03 Jul 2025.
APEX / MEGA
Allegations that the president's team 'covered up' Biden's mental decline from the public while he was in office have spurred a House Oversight Committee probe into the matter, backed by the Trump administration. Nine former senior White House officials are expected to testify in the coming weeks.
A representative for Biden declined to comment.
A former Biden speechwriter balked at Pager in a post on X, writing, 'Is the implication here supposed to be that it's normal and important for any journalist to have the personal cell phone number of the president — and if you can't call POTUS directly whenever you'd like, it's a sign of insularity? Because that strikes me as… insane.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Van Hollen says an armed National Guard in DC would be ‘troubling'
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., on Sunday underlined his stance that President Donald Trump deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C., over concerns of high crime and the level of homelessness amounts to an "abuse of power." "All of this is a total abuse of power. It's a manufactured emergency," Van Hollen said in an interview with "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz. "Obviously D.C. can do more to reduce violent crime, as we can across the country. But as you pointed out, crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low and a downward trajectory. So, this is all an opportunity for Donald Trump to play dictator in Washington, D.C." "The way the law is written, it appears he has the legal authority. And Mayor [Muriel] Bowser conceded that. So, what is the abuse of power here?" Raddatz pressed. MORE: Trump admin live updates "The abuse of power is claiming that this is an emergency. And everybody who is watching what happens knows that this is not an emergency in Washington, D.C.," Van Hollen argued. Violent crime levels have decreased compared to years prior, down 26% since 2024, a 30-year low, leaving outstanding questions over why Trump deployed roughly 800 troops around the city. Over the weekend, several Republican-led states announced additional Guard troops would also deploy to Washington to support the president's mission. As some outlets report the National Guard could be armed soon, Van Hollen said, "Well, that's very troubling, because, as you know, the National Guard, first of all, is not supposed to engage in any local law enforcement activity. We have the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits them from engaging in local law enforcement. And so I'm not sure what it is that they need to do where they need to be armed." Despite fierce criticism from Democrats like Van Hollen and protests from some Washington residents, the White House has defended its decision to surge federal law enforcement to the city and bring in the National Guard as necessary and legal. Here are more highlights from Van Hollen's interview On D.C. police chief saying additional law enforcement 'positive' Raddatz: The mayor suggested this week that the surge of -- of federal police could be useful in fighting crime. And there is a crime problem in D.C. We all live here. I want you to -- I want to play you something that D.C.'s police chief, Pamela Smith, said this week. Pamela Smith (video clip): You're talking about 500 additional personnel in the District of Columbia. And as you know, we've talked about the fact that we're down in numbers with our police officers. And so, this enhanced presence clearly is going to impact us in a positive way. Raddatz: So, do you see anything positive about this? Van Hollen: Well, I understand the position the police chief is in. The best way to help the police chief in Washington, D.C., is for President Trump and Republicans in Congress to give them the $1 billion in money that belongs to them so that they can hire those police, rather than bringing in these federal agents. I would also say, Martha, I would think that taxpayers all over the country, federal taxpayers, have to ask themselves how it is that we are using resources, national resources, the FBI, the DEA, folks who are supposed to be out and about protecting the country from violent criminals, and now they're spending their time taking down tents of homeless people in the District of Columbia. I would think people all over the country would worry about that diversion of resources. On what Congress does if Trump goes past the 30-day limit Raddatz: The -- the president says he's going to maintain control of D.C. police past this 30-day limit, no matter what Congress does. So, then what do you do? Van Hollen: Well, that clearly is a violation of the statute. And so, we'll end up right back in court. Of course, the president also thought he had the ability to essentially take out the police chief and have his people come in and run the police department. A federal judge already said that that was not authorized. And in the same way, his ability to extend it beyond 30 days is not authorized. And so, they're going to have to pass this statute in the -- this extension in the Congress. And I don't think that that's going to pass. On his reaction to the Trump-Putin summit Van Hollen: Well, Martha, there's no sugarcoating this. Donald Trump, once again, got played by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin got the red carpet treatment on American soil. But we got no ceasefire, no imminent meeting between Putin and [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy. All the threats and sanctions that, you know, Donald Trump talked about, apparently, have been set aside. Donald Trump got flattered by Vladimir Putin. But when it comes to Ukraine under European allies, this was a setback. I do believe that Congress now, the Senate in particular, should move forward on bipartisan legislation that has over 60 senators as co-sponsors that would impose sanctions on Russia and Vladimir Putin. Personal relations are important. And I have no objection to people talking. But you want to have a clear objective in mind. Clearly, Vladimir Putin had a clear objective in mind. And he came to Alaska and gave up nothing, whereas, you know, Donald Trump said he had hoped to do, you know, a ceasefire, he had hoped to fly in Zelenskyy maybe even while Vladimir Putin was there. None of that happened. And meanwhile, they've taken the pressure off the sanctions. I mean, again, Donald Trump was supposed to impose sanctions on Russia weeks ago now, and nothing. So, this was a victory for Vladimir Putin.
Wall Street Journal
32 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Newsom's Map Gambit Is a Short-Term Play
Gavin Newsom is doing what he does best: seeking attention. The California governor is succeeding even as his policies fail. He proposes to redraw the state's congressional map to parry a similar move by Texas Republicans. It's a gambit to elevate himself as his party's standard-bearer. It's also a blue herring. Denounce Donald Trump and Texas Republicans for undermining democracy, and maybe Americans will overlook how Democrats have entrenched one-party rule in California to such ill effect.
