Biden's White House chief of staff made all the ‘big decisions,' was nicknamed ‘Prime Minister': book
Jake Tapper of CNN and Alex Thompson of Axios share damning revelations about the alleged cover up of Biden's mental and physical decline in the book Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, out today.
Ron Klain, who served as Biden's chief of staff from the start of his term until February 2023, was thought of as having 'Prime Minister' status by people inside the administration because the president was so 'limited', according to Thompson.
Speaking to TIME, Thompson was asked about insiders referring 'to Ron Klain as the Prime Minister.'
'When you have a President whose energy is limited, whose time is limited, whose bandwidth is limited, then a lot of decision making filters down,' Thompson responded. 'And there were big decisions being made that people who had served in previous administrations and were surprised that Joe Biden was not involved in.'
Thompson added that one Cabinet member, who is not identified, told the authors: 'The President is making the decisions, but if you present the decisions in a certain way, often it's not really a decision.'
Klain was 'disappointed' in Biden's lack of preparation for the disastrous debate against Donald Trump on June 27. 'He'd been assured that Biden had been reviewing his prep materials before he arrived at Camp David, but he hadn't,' the authors write.
In another book on Biden's decline released last month by reporter Chris Whipple, Uncharted: How Trump Beat Biden, Harris, and the Odds in the Wildest Campaign in History, Klain was said to be 'startled' by the president's demeanor during debate prep at Camp David.
'He'd never seen him so exhausted and out of it,' The Guardian reported. 'Biden was unaware of what was happening in his own campaign. Halfway through the session, the president excused himself and went off to sit by the pool.'
'The president was fatigued, befuddled, and disengaged,' Whipple writes in the book. 'Klain feared the debate with Trump would be a nationally televised disaster.'
Klain later told Politico that the 'framing' of his comments in the report was 'wrong.'
Despite his previous remarks about the former president, responding to Thompson and Tapper's latest book, Klain said that he still believed that Biden should not have dropped out of the race.
'We are all in decline. But the president was mentally sharp and capable of serving,' Klain told The Guardian. 'I think his press conference after the Nato meeting in July proved that.'
The book's release comes just two days after Biden revealed he has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer.
In response to claims made in the book, Biden's spokesperson Chris Meagher said that his team was 'still waiting for someone, anyone, to point out where Joe Biden had to make a presidential decision or make a presidential address where he was unable to do his job because of mental decline.'
'In fact, the evidence points to the opposite — he was a very effective president,' Meagher added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Everyone loses in a redistricting war
Gerrymandering, a wonky topic previously discussed mainly among AP history students and political scientists, has recently dominated national news headlines. In the fight for control of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, governors of several states are opting to hijack the decennial process for partisan advantage, rather than letting voters decide directly who should represent them in Congress. Election analyst and redistricting expert Dave Wasserman recently referred to what's happening as the 'gerrymandering apocalypse.' CNN referred to it as a 'battle royale.' And Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) said, 'we are at war.' It's easy to point fingers at Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and say 'he started it!' Abbott acquiesced to President Trump's suggestion that the state take up redistricting mid-cycle and draw five additional Republican seats — a seemingly desperate attempt to avoid the ' midterm curse, ' where the incumbent president's party typically loses House seats in a midterm election. But the Archduke Ferdinand in the war on redistricting isn't Texas, it's actually Ohio. There's a famous adage relevant here: 'So goes Ohio, so goes the nation.' And over the past two redistricting cycles, Ohio has gone down a very gerrymandered path that the nation now seems to be following. In matters that extend beyond Ohio and gerrymandering, it is imperative that we pay attention to what is going on in statehouses around the country, ' laboratories of autocracy ' as they are often rightly called, for a glimpse into the corruption that awaits our national politics. Ohio has some of the most gerrymandered maps in the nation. Its state legislature and Republican-dominated redistricting committee gerrymandered maps through a series of secret backroom deals, disregard of multiple court orders, and a deliberate strategy of confusing voters to sabotage attempted reform. They even tried to impeach the Republican chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court for ruling their rigged maps unconstitutional. But while state politicians were gerrymandering Ohio, unfortunately, few people were paying attention. Despite repeatedly breaking the rules, there was no accountability for the elected officials who took part in the scheme. To the contrary, most who participated were rewarded with electoral districts they were guaranteed to win, and a veto-proof majority in the state legislature. This has allowed Republicans in the state to pass unpopular laws that aren't supported by most voters. Take, for example, Ohio's Heartbeat Law, which outlawed abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Poll after poll showed that a majority — nearly 60 percent — of Ohioans supported abortion rights, with only 32 percent opposed and 10 percent undecided. These numbers have held relatively steady over several years. However, the 2019 legislative vote passing the bill seemed to reflect the inverse; the Ohio House passed the measure 56-40 and the Ohio Senate 18-12. Although average voters around the country weren't paying attention to what was happening in the Buckeye State, political operatives were. What happened in Ohio is now serving as a playbook for what we are seeing in states like Texas, Missouri and Florida. The governors and state legislatures of these states have indicated that they are willing to cheat to win. The Trump administration has demonstrated its willingness to ignore court orders it does not like. And, if they continue to do so, we will likely have a Congress that continues to pass legislation that is unpopular with voters. Politics is often like physics, in that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Democrats have indicated they are willing to fight back by gerrymandering blue states such as California and New York. Some have praised them for this effort, with one Democratic consultant stating: 'There's anger among Democrats, and they wonder why their elected leaders aren't doing everything they can to fight back. … Kathy Hochul is out there saying, 'I'll do everything I can to fight back — including gerrymandering the s–t out of New York.'' But as the redistricting wars escalate, it is also a reminder that, as in any war, no one actually wins. Regardless of which party controls Congress after the 2026 midterms, voters in both red and blue states will be disenfranchised, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's ' one man, one vote ' edict . Both Democrats in red states and Republicans in blue states will be without any genuine form of representation. And even those who have a congressman of their preferred party affiliation will likely be represented by a more extremist candidate whose policy positions aren't reflective of the people in that district. As noted by The Associated Press, 'gerrymandering, once a feared accusation, has now become a battle cry.' If there's any lesson we can take away from the fight, it's that the lines we need to redraw aren't those separating congressional districts, but the ones we are willing to cross to ensure our side wins at all costs.
an hour ago
Key takeaways from Trump and Zelenskyy's Oval Office meeting to discuss Ukraine
President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sounded positive as they met at the White House on Monday as Trump pushes for an end to Russia's war on Kyiv. Zelenskyy is joined in Washington by a sweeping delegation of European leaders who rushed to the U.S. in support of the Ukrainian leader after being left out of talks between Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin in Alaska last Friday. The last time Zelenskyy was in the Oval Office was February, when he received a verbal lashing from President Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who accused him of not being grateful enough for U.S. military assistance. Monday's sit-down was a much more cordial affair, with Trump and Zelenskyy sharing smiles and Zelenskyy thanking the president for his personal efforts to bring this conflict to a close. Here are some key takeaways from the high-stakes meeting. Trump says US will give Ukraine 'very good protection' President Trump on Monday said the United States will be involved in security assistance for Ukraine -- a key condition for Zelenskyy in any deal to end the war -- but did not elaborate on what exactly that would look like or give any specifics. "We're going to be discussing it today, but we will give them very good protection, very good security. That's part of it," Trump said. The president declined to go as far as Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, who told CNN that Russia agreed to "Article 5-like" protections for Ukraine during Friday's summit. Article 5 is the agreement of collective defense among NATO nations stating an attack against one member is considered an attack against them all. "We'll let you know that maybe later today," Trump said. "We're meeting with seven great leaders of great countries also, and we'll be talking about that. They'll all be involved, but there'll be a lot of -- there'll be a lot of help when it comes to security." "They are first line of defense because they're there," Trump said of Europe before adding, "But we're going to help them. And also we'll be involved." Trump walks back ceasefire demand After previously pushing for a ceasefire and threatening severe consequences for Russia if Putin did not stop the war, President Trump appeared to back off that demand. "I don't think you need a ceasefire," he said when asked about whether his previous call for a ceasefire had changed. "I know that it might be good to have, but I can also understand strategically, like, well, you know, one country or the other wouldn't want it." He continued that he likes "the concept of a ceasefire for one reason, because you'd stop killing people immediately." Trump pushes for trilateral meeting Trump repeatedly expressed optimism that, "We're gonna have a lasting peace." Trump also continued to push for a trilateral meeting between himself, Zelenskyy and Putin -- something he had hoped to set up immediately following his summit with Putin on Friday but was unsuccessful. Zelenskyy said Ukraine is "ready" for a trilateral discussion. Asked if this is the end of the road for U.S. support for Ukraine if there is no deal made, Trump said, "It's never the end of the road." "People are being killed, and we want to stop that. So, I would not say it's the end of the road. No, I think we have a good chance of doing it," Trump said. Trump says he will speak with Putin after meetings Trump said he will call Putin after his meetings Zelenskyy and European leaders at the White House. "We're going to have a phone call right after these meetings today, and we may or may not have a trilat. And if we don't have a trilat, then the fighting continues. And if we do, we have a good chance -- I think if we have a trilat that there's a good chance of maybe ending it," Trump said. "But he's expecting my call when we're finished with this meeting," Trump added of Putin.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
OpenAI's Altman warns the U.S. is underestimating China's next-gen AI threat
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman warned that the U.S. may be underestimating the complexity and seriousness of China's progress in artificial intelligence, and said export controls alone likely aren't a reliable solution. "I'm worried about China," he said. Over Mediterranean tapas in San Francisco's Presidio — just five miles north of OpenAI's original office in the Mission — Altman offered a rare on-the-record briefing to a small group of reporters, including CNBC. He warned that the U.S.–China AI race is deeply entangled — and more consequential than a simple who's-ahead scoreboard. "There's inference capacity, where China probably can build faster. There's research, there's product; a lot of layers to the whole thing," he said. "I don't think it'll be as simple as: Is the U.S. or China ahead?" Despite escalating U.S. export controls on semiconductors, Altman is unconvinced that the policy is keeping up with technical reality. Asked whether it would be reassuring if fewer GPUs were reaching China, Altman was skeptical. "My instinct is that doesn't work," he said. "You can export-control one thing, but maybe not the right thing… maybe people build fabs or find other workarounds," he added, referring to semiconductor fabrication facilities, the specialized factories that produce the chips powering everything from smartphones to large-scale AI systems. "I'd love an easy solution," added Altman. "But my instinct is: That's hard." His comments come as Washington adjusts its policies designed to curb China's AI ambitions. The Biden administration initially tightened export controls, but in April, President Donald Trump went further — halting the supply of advanced chips altogether, including models previously designed to comply with Biden-era rules. Last week, however, the U.S. carved out an exception for certain "China-safe" chips, allowing sales to resume under a controversial and unprecedented agreement requiring Nvidia and AMD to give the federal government 15% of their China chip revenue. The result is a patchwork regime that may be easier to navigate than enforce. And while U.S. firms deepen their dependence on chips from Nvidia and AMD, Chinese companies are pushing ahead with alternatives from Huawei and other domestic suppliers — raising questions about whether cutting off supply is having the intended effect. China's AI progress has also influenced how OpenAI thinks about releasing its own models. While the company has long resisted calls to make its technology fully open source, Altman said competition from Chinese models — particularly open-source systems like DeepSeek — was a factor in OpenAI's recent decision to release its own open-weight models. "It was clear that if we didn't do it, the world was gonna head to be mostly built on Chinese open source models," Altman said. "That was a factor in our decision, for sure. Wasn't the only one, but that loomed large." Earlier this month, OpenAI released two open-weight language models — its first since GPT-2 in 2019 — marking a significant shift in strategy for the company that has long kept its technology gated behind application programming interfaces, or APIs. The new text-only models, called gpt-oss-120b and gpt-oss-20b, are designed as lower-cost options that developers, researchers, and companies can download, run locally, and customize. An AI model is considered open weight if its parameters — the values learned during training that determine how the model generates responses — are publicly available. While that offers transparency and control, it's not the same as open source. OpenAI is still not releasing its training data or full source code. With this release, OpenAI joins that wave and, for now, stands alone as the only major U.S. foundation model company actively leaning into a more open approach. While Meta had embraced openness with its Llama models, CEO Mark Zuckerberg suggested on the company's second-quarter earnings call it may pull back on that strategy going forward. OpenAI, meanwhile, is moving in the opposite direction, betting that broader accessibility will help grow its developer ecosystem and strengthen its position against Chinese rivals. Altman had previously acknowledged that OpenAI had been "on the wrong side of history" by locking up its models. Ultimately, OpenAI's move shows it wants to keep developers engaged and within its ecosystem. That push comes as Meta reconsiders its open-source stance and Chinese labs flood the market with models designed to be flexible and widely adopted. Still, the open-weight debut has drawn mixed reviews. Some developers have called the models underwhelming, noting that many of the capabilities that make OpenAI's commercial offerings so powerful were stripped out. Altman didn't dispute that, saying the team intentionally optimized for one core use case: locally-run coding agents. "If the kind of demand shifts in the world," he said, "you can push it to something else." Watch: OpenAI's enterprise bet pays off as startups in Silicon Valley switch to GPT-5
