logo
Ex-Biden press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announces switch to independent with new book

Ex-Biden press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announces switch to independent with new book

Yahoo4 days ago

Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who worked for two Democratic presidents and had one of the most public-facing roles in the Biden administration, is urging Americans to 'embrace life as independents.'
Jean-Pierre shares her message with readers in a forthcoming book, 'Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines,' poised to be released in October by Hachette Book Group's Legacy Lit imprint.
The book is described in promotional materials as a 'groundbreaking, revelatory assessment of America's broken two-party system.'
'Jean-Pierre didn't come to her decision to be an independent lightly,' a description of the book from the publisher said.
'She takes us through the three weeks that led to Biden's abandoning his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision.'
Former President Biden exited the 2024 White House race last July, amid questions about his mental and physical acuity.
'In an urgent, timely analysis,'Independent' urges all Americans to vote their values and maintain individuality within party lines,' the publisher said, calling the book a 'hard-hitting yet hopeful critique.'
Fifty-year-old Jean-Pierre, who also worked in former President Obama's administration and under Biden became the first Black and the first openly LGBTQ person to serve as White House press secretary, 'presents clear arguments and provocative evidence as an insider about the importance of dismantling the torrent of disinformation and misinformation that has been rampant in recent elections and provides passionate insight for moving forward,' the publisher added.
Jean-Pierre said in a Wednesday video posted on Instagram touting the book that she penned it to help answer the 'number one question' she gets from people: 'How do we get out of this? How do we protect our democracy? How do we protect vulnerable communities among us? What do we do next?'
'I think we need to stop thinking in boxes and think outside of our boxes and not be so partisan,' she said.
'The way that I see moving forward in this space that we're in right now is if you are willing to stand side by side with me, regardless of how you identify politically — and as long as you respect the community that I belong to and vulnerable communities that I respect — I will be there with you. I will move forward with you,' Jean-Pierre said in the social media post.
In February, she had criticized Democrats for pressuring Biden to withdraw from the presidential race.
'I'd never seen a party do that in the way that they did, and it was hurtful and sad to see that happening, a firing squad around a person who I believe was a true patriot,' she said at the time.
—Updated at 12:23 p.m. EDT
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Former White House doctor: Biden physician should have tested for cognitive decline
Former White House doctor: Biden physician should have tested for cognitive decline

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Former White House doctor: Biden physician should have tested for cognitive decline

A former doctor for the White House under the Obama administration said former President Biden should have been tested for cognitive decline in his final year in office, given his age. Jeffrey Kuhlman said performing such a test on Biden would have shed light on the former president's mental state and ability to serve another four years. 'Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest,' Kuhlman told The Washington Post. Biden's long-term doctor, Kevin O'Connor, didn't perform a cognitive test on the leader during his fourth year in office, as White House officials said formal results weren't needed to prove the former president's mental soundness. 'The president's doctor has said, if you look at what this president, who is also the commander-in-chief — he passes a cognitive test every day — every day, as he moves from one topic to another topic, understanding the granular level of these topics,' former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said during a February briefing last year. 'You saw him talk about fighting crime today. Tomorrow, he's going to go to the border. Next week, he's going to give a State of the Union Address,' she added. O'Connor was recently subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) to address why a cognitive test wasn't given. Biden traveled often while serving, including taking two international trips prior to his first presidential debate with President Trump. 'This is a very rigorous job. And the president has been able to do — do this job every day for the past three years,' Jean-Pierre previously told reporters from the podium. However, Kuhlman said the public deserved to have evidence that Biden was mentally sharp, arguing that health reports should include a total overview of a president's well-being. 'It shouldn't be just health, it should be fitness,' Kuhlman said. 'Fitness is: Do you have that robust mind, body, spirit that you can do this physically, mentally, emotionally demanding job?' Months after leaving office, Biden was diagnosed with prostate cancer amid reports alleging he suffered from mental decay while serving as commander-in-chief. 'Cancer touches us all. Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places,' he wrote in a post on X. 'Thank you for lifting us up with love and support.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade

timean hour ago

South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit The Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600 million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lieutenant Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.'

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

timean hour ago

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store