Trump shares theory that Joe Biden DIED in 2020 and was replaced by a clone
President Donald Trump shared a bizarre theory on social media Saturday night that suggested Joe Biden died in 2020 and has since been replaced by a 'clone.'
The Truth Social post, which has since gone viral, stated bluntly that the former president of the United States had somehow been dead for years while still in office.
'There is no #JoeBiden - executed in 2020. #Biden clones doubles & robotic engineered soulless mindless entities are what you see,' wrote the user named llijh. '# Democrats dont know the difference.'
Trump did not add any of his own commentary to the post, but simply amplifying the wild conspiracy created confusion.
Almost immediately, social media erupted, with supporters and critics alike grappling with the surreal suggestion.
'We all knew something was completely off,' one commenter wrote. 'Although Trump has said repeatedly that Joe Biden was shot.'
Others reveled in the uncanny nature of the moment: 'Wow! President Trump just re-truthed this post,' exclaimed one astonished user.
Another chimed in: 'I cannot believe President Trump just reTRUTHED this.'
The president's replies section rapidly devolved into a torrent of wild speculation about what surprises may be ahead.
'Well you just went there! Go you! The truth is coming! Buckle up!' one supporter cheered.
President Donald Trump re-truthed a bizarre and conspiratorial post on his Truth Social platform on Saturday night suggesting that Joe Biden died in 2020 and has since been replaced by a 'clone'
Trump himself did not add any commentary to the post, but the act of re-truthing it spoke volumes
'Thank you, do you know how long I've been saying this? Trump was still our President in his first term and I knew Joe Biden was gone during his run for president. They installed The Biden...an actor (blue eyes & brown eyes),' wrote another, referring to fringe theories that claim noticeable changes in Biden's eye color are evidence of a body double.
Others mocked the madness. 'Just like all MAGAts, you're all into conspiracy theories. Do you think the earth is flat as well? Just wondering,' one user wrote sarcastically.
'We knew this but now it's confirmed by the Commander in Chief! Wow!!! NCSWIC…nothing! Trust the Plan!' added a QAnon sympathizer, referencing the popular but baseless 'Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming' slogan.
Trump's casual amplification served to underscore the surreal and conspiratorial environment that defines the MAGA movement.
This isn't the first time Trump has danced with conspiracy theories.
Throughout his first term as president Trump continued to given oxygen to baseless theories: suggesting Ted Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination, refusing to fully distance himself from QAnon, and promoting claims of massive voter fraud during the 2020 election without evidence.
Trump was the most prominent promoter of the so-called 'birther' conspiracy, falsely claiming that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
For years, Trump demanded Obama's birth certificate and continued to suggest it was fraudulent even after Obama released the official long-form document.
It wasn't until 2016, under mounting political pressure, that Trump finally admitted Obama was born in the US - without apology or acknowledgment of the damage the false claims had caused.
But suggesting the idea that a former president of the United States was a 'clone' pushes the envelope even further.
The statement appeared more like the plot of a sci-fi movie than a concept worthy of the attention of a head of state.
Last month, Biden's cancer announcement revived questions about the extent of his health issues during his tenure, with Trump saying Biden should have been more transparent with the public.
Biden's office said he had been diagnosed with 'aggressive' prostate cancer that had spread to his bones.
It placed renewed focus on the health of the 82-year-old with the publication of a book that details widespread concerns about Biden's mental acuity among aides and Democratic insiders as he pursued reelection in 2024.
The new book, 'Original Sin,' by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson put a spotlight on Biden's mental acuity in his final months in office.
Excerpts from the book have prompted new questions about whether critical information was withheld from the American public about Biden's ability to serve in the White House.
Biden's closest aides have dismissed those concerns, saying Biden was fully capable of making important decisions.
Biden has appeared on television to rebut accusations that his mental capacity had diminished during his 2021-2025 term.
Biden, the oldest person ever to serve as president, was forced to drop his reelection bid last July after a stumbling debate performance against Trump eroded his support among fellow Democrats.
Biden's vice president, Kamala Harris, launched a bid of her own but lost to Trump in the November 2024 election.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
7 minutes ago
- Times
Why exercise might help you to avoid cancer — and to survive it
Act now to keep your subscription We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Times
9 minutes ago
- Times
Tax rises loom to put Britain on a war footing
Act now to keep your subscription We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
The cost of deterring Russian aggression is high – but the cost of war is higher still
Most strategic defence reviews – this is the ninth since the end of the Cold War in 1990 – have two major 'strategic' flaws. The first is that the world changes so fast that they are outdated almost before they are presented to the nation. Not much, to be fair, can be done about that. The second, a more puzzling and abiding failure, is that they rarely give much attention to the essential question predicating any such exercise – what, exactly, are Britain's armed forces (and the Secret Intelligence Service) going to be asked to do in the coming years? This is at least as important a consideration as the problem of getting defence spending up to a certain target by a certain date. If a government chooses the wrong priorities and buys the wrong kit under a set of faulty assumptions, then it doesn't really matter whether the Ministry of Defence determines that (for example) 2.6 or 2.7 per cent of GDP should be devoted to armaments – especially as GDP can be difficult to predict, and the definition of defence expenditure can be elasticated to include, for instance, service pensions. Indeed, a more sensible approach might be to set a cash target for spending, irrespective of how the economy performs. After all, if Donald Trump is at liberty to ramp up the required percentage target – and he's suggested 5 per cent as the figure – then virtually no European nation will realistically be able to achieve it. (Besides, Vladimir Putin doesn't pay much heed to such statistics, and is more interested in how many drones an enemy possesses.) Unfortunately, the latest defence review suffers from some of the traditional weaknesses. Just as every such document has done since the Atlantic Alliance was founded by treaty in 1949, it suggests that Nato is central to the UK's defence. In the words of Sir Keir Starmer: 'The Nato alliance means something profound: that we will never fight alone. It is a fundamental source of our strategic strength. That's why our defence policy will always be 'Nato first.' Something that is written through this review.' But is that even any longer true? Surely not. For diplomatic reasons, Sir Keir might not feel free to say it, but the Trump administration has made it perfectly apparent that America's support for Nato is no longer a given. Senior colleagues of the US president, with his evident blessing, informed a gobsmacked European audience at the last Munich Security Conference that America is downgrading its commitment to the security of Europe. Vice-president Vance even went so far as to argue that it is not Russia, under President Putin, that represents the greatest danger to the freedoms of Europeans: it is the progressive 'threat from within'. Perhaps the US intelligence services no longer tell Mr Vance what's going on inside Russia or occupied Ukraine with regard to religious worship and free speech. At any rate, under Mr Trump, America's relationship with Nato is more transactional, and its support cannot be counted on if that would get in the way of the rapprochement with Russia, as its abandonment of Ukraine shamefully proves. Indeed, in this context, it is reasonable to wonder if our collaborative ties with the US on intelligence and the nuclear deterrent – the foundations of the special relationship – can also be guaranteed on their current basis. The clue that this may not be taken as read can be seen in the proposal that Britain acquire aircraft capable of delivering nuclear warheads, rather than relying entirely on the US-controlled Trident missile delivery systems. The prime minister can't say or do anything that might worsen Mr Trump's attitude to America's allies; Sir Keir is right to do everything possible to preserve that vital special security and defence relationship. Equally, though, he would be negligent if he did not contemplate the prospect of the transatlantic bond one day becoming looser. Hence the tilt towards Europe, the formation of the Coalition of the Willing over Ukraine, and the proposed UK-EU defence pact that has emerged from the Brexit 'reset'. But if there is to be a new relationship with Europe, including participation in the European Defence Agency, how does that affect the planned expansion of the British defence industry? Nor are Britain's wider foreign and defence policy priorities any more a decision uniquely for London. The 'global Britain' role envisaged by the last Conservative government suddenly feels out of date. When asked by reporters about the Aukus (Australia-UK-US) defence pact, President Trump professed to be unaware of it. More forcefully, the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, has told European powers that the Indo-Pacific region is America's to protect – and that they should stick to defending their own continent. Where that leaves the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers is an expensive question that remains moot. Will Britain join in the defence of Taiwan, and if so, now? Matters such as the security of the Falklands and other vestigial British obligations have also largely escaped the nation's attention for decades. The legal basis for the Diego Garcia base has been established, at a price, but is it overwhelmingly an American, rather than a British, strategic asset? The other great defence challenge for ministers is in persuading the British public that the threats that are more or less clearly defined in the defence review are real. To many, they feel distant. Here, the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Farage seem to agree that, however barbaric his actions in Eastern Europe, Putin is not going to occupy the UK. The idea that the Russians, still less the Chinese, are about to invade Kent seems absurd. Yet the cyberattacks, the poisonings on British soil, political interference via social media, and the sabotage of communications cables are all very obvious assaults. The attack on the NHS a few years ago, which left staff resorting to paper and pen, should serve as a warning of Russia's malign intent. Sir Keir and his colleagues should be remaking the historic argument that it is not in the British national interest for the continent of Europe to be dominated by a hostile power. That is why Britain fought the Napoleonic wars, two world wars and the Cold War. The cost of deterring Russian aggression, whatever it ends up being as a proportion of national income, will be high – but, as Ukraine also proves, the cost of fighting a war is incalculably higher.
