Former president Biden makes first public appearance since cancer diagnosis
1 of 2 | Former President Joe Biden (pictured January 2025) made a public appearance Friday, his first since revealing his cancer diagnosis earlier this month. File Pool Photo by Kevin Lamarque/UPI | License Photo
May 30 (UPI) -- Former President Joe Biden made a public appearance Friday, his first since revealing his cancer diagnosis earlier this month.
Biden, 82, delivered remarks at Veterans Memorial Park in New Castle, Del., during a Memorial Day event, which also marked the 10th anniversary of the death of his son Beau Biden.
"This day is the 10th anniversary of the loss of my son Beau, who spent a year in Iraq. And to be honest, it's a hard day," the elder Biden told those in attendance Friday.
"Being with all of you quite frankly makes things a little bit easier, it really does. So thank you for allowing me to grieve with you."
Beau Biden served in the Delaware National Guard and was exposed to toxic burn pits on military bases while deployed to Iraq, something many military veterans blame for health conditions later in life.
Biden has said he believes the exposure to toxic burn pits contributed to his son's death from brain cancer at the age of 46.
While still in office last year, Biden announced $150 million in funding "to make cancer removal more precise."
Earlier this month, the former president confirmed he has been diagnosed with an "aggressive form" of prostate cancer.
He later thanked people for their support on social media but has not made public remarks until Friday's appearance at the annual event. Biden urged supporters to get behind veterans and put political differences aside.
"The women and men we honor today are no longer with us, but you can still hear their echoes. Literally, can't you? ... They're asking, what will we do? ... They're asking us to stay true to what America stands for," the former president said during his remarks.
"They're not asking us to do their jobs. They're asking us to do our job, to protect our nation in our time now, to defend democracy, be part of something bigger than ourselves. So today, let's renew our pledge to honor our heroes."
Cancer touches us all. Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places. Thank you for lifting us up with love and support. pic.twitter.com/oSS1vGIiwU— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 19, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created
I have no inside knowledge or insight as to whether Kamala Harris will run for governor of California in 2026. I'm not looped into her inner circle or decision-making process. But as someone who has advised many potential candidates about whether to run for offices from president to city council, I do have some perspective on what she should be considering. Having managed four campaigns for governor of California, I know the process is often harrowing and humbling for those who throw their hat in the ring. The state's electorate is not on the whole very attentive to politics, picking up only bits and snippets about candidates, many of them negative, and the media is out to turn over every rock to expose every frailty, screw-up, inconsistency and verbal slip. In Harris's case, she is already well known to voters, having been on the statewide ballot eight times, and having served as vice president, U.S. senator and attorney general. But she will be tested on two issues having nothing to do with her service as a senator or attorney general. If she does run, she will be pestered unmercifully about whether she would just be using the governorship as a holding room on her way to another White House bid. She would, of course, have to issue a pro forma pledge to serve a full term. The question is whether voters would believe have witnessed presidential fever infect their governors before. Jerry Brown was elected the first time in 1974. A little more than a year after being inaugurated, he was gallivanting off to Maryland and other states campaigning for president. Brown then ran yet again for president just over six months into his second term. Pete Wilson was handily reelected in 1994, then announced he was running for president less than five months after being sworn in. A perhaps even more serious problem for Harris is the current orgy of reporting about the new book, 'Original Sin,' which purports to tell the inside story of Joe Biden's physical and mental decline — and the complicity of those close to him in covering up and making excuses for his lapses. Some Democrats have tried to push back on the book by questioning this or picking at that, but come on, millions of Americans witnessed firsthand the pathetic and alarming former shell of himself that Biden displayed during the debate with Trump. Already, announced gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the former L.A. mayor, has very publicly taken Harris to task, demanding to know what she knew and when she knew it and criticizing her for not sounding an alarm about Biden's decrepitude. Just wait until the press gets her in their sights. And Harris will really have no good option: She will either have to throw Biden under the bus — an uncomfortable route given his recent cancer diagnosis, and her mum's-the-word approach until now — or claim she didn't witness the deterioration while sitting at his elbow, thus implicating herself in the cover-up. The emperor has no clothes, anyone? With all due respect to Harris, there is also the matter of her own presidential campaign. From a Democratic point of view, it was a total failure. She not only lost to Trump, of all people, but was the only Democratic nominee in the last 20 years to lose the popular vote. She lost all seven swing states — five of which had Democratic governors, and five of which had not one, but two Democratic senators. Democrats lost the Senate and failed to take back the House. She actually got a smaller share of the vote here in her own home state than Biden had in 2020. She even received fewer women's votes than Biden did in 2020. Does any of that shout, 'Hey, I should be able to waltz into the governor's office of the biggest state as a consolation prize?' Now, no doubt, a lot of Democrats in California would still support her, even if only as a big middle finger to Trump. But going for governor would inevitably result in a relitigation of questions about her flop of a run for president, as laid out in the best-selling book 'Fight,' a detailed chronicle of the 2024 race that sheds light on many of the missteps and mismanagement of her campaign. Again, I don't have a clue about Harris's intentions. But I do have some free advice about what she should be thinking about in making her decision. She's welcome. Garry South is a veteran Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and two for lieutenant governor.
Forbes
43 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Drops A Cybersecurity Bombshell With Biden-Era Policy Reversal
Less than 24 hours after President Trump's public feud with Elon Musk, a new cybersecurity executive order was issued on June 6, 2025, introducing major revisions to the Biden administration's final cybersecurity directives. The order not only modifies key elements of Biden's January 2025 framework but also signals a broader realignment of federal cybersecurity priorities. It shifts focus away from federal digital identity initiatives and revises compliance-heavy software security mandates. Officially titled 'Sustaining Select Efforts To Strengthen The Nation's Cybersecurity And Amending Executive Order 13694 And Executive Order 14144,' the order represents a strategic departure from prior approaches, emphasizing operational pragmatism over regulatory expansion. Notably, it comes at a time when President Trump's nominee to lead the Cybersecurity And Infrastructure Security Agency, Sean Plankey, has yet to be confirmed due to opposition and delay tactics from both sides of the aisle. President Biden's Executive Order 14144 was issued on January 16, 2025, just four days before President Trump's inauguration. It was interpreted by many observers as an effort to define long-term cybersecurity direction before the change in administration. The order included measures to bolster software supply chain security, expand digital identity infrastructure and accelerate post-quantum cryptography adoption. However, this latest Trump order criticized several of these elements as overreaching or insufficiently vetted, characterizing them as 'problematic and distracting' and specifically noting that they were 'sneaked' into policy in the final hours of Biden's presidency. The language used in the accompanying fact sheet is unusually blunt for a federal document, suggesting a clear intent to publicly distance the new administration from its predecessor's policy posture. 1. Attribution Of Threats: Direct Language On Foreign Cyber Aggressors The executive order opens with unusually direct language, identifying the People's Republic of China as the most 'active and persistent' cyber threat to U.S. government systems, private sector networks and critical infrastructure. It also names Russia, Iran and North Korea as continuing sources of malicious cyber activity. This blunt attribution departs from the more generalized threat descriptions of previous administrations. By naming adversaries explicitly in the policy preamble, the administration signals a shift toward greater transparency in threat acknowledgment and a hardening of posture. The message is clear: U.S. cyber strategy is now being framed not only by evolving technologies but by intensifying geopolitical realities. 2. Software Security Compliance: Shifting From Mandated Attestations To Voluntary Implementation: Biden's order imposed a layered framework requiring federal contractors to submit attestations, artifacts and documentation tied to NIST's Secure Software Development Framework. Some would say that these requirements risked turning development teams into compliance teams. Trump's order eliminates attestations entirely. NIST will still provide guidance through the National Cybersecurity Center Of Excellence, but reporting is no longer mandatory. This reflects a shift toward flexibility over formality. 3. Digital Identity Verification: A Full Repeal Rooted In Fiscal And Legal Concerns: The Biden administration had envisioned digital credentials as a gateway to streamlined government services. Trump's order reverses course, citing concerns about entitlement fraud and improper access. The fact sheet explicitly warns that Biden's policy could have enabled unauthorized immigrants to obtain digital IDs. As a result, pilots on interoperability and identity federation are halted. 4. Artificial Intelligence In Cybersecurity: Tighter Focus On Defense And Vulnerability Management: Biden's order encouraged AI-driven collaboration across academia and industry. Trump's order takes a narrower view. It requires agencies to track vulnerabilities in AI systems, integrate them into incident response pipelines and limit data sharing to only what is feasible under security and confidentiality constraints. AI is repositioned as a potential liability to be secured, not a universal defense engine. 5. Post-Quantum Cryptography: A Deadline Remains But The Path Is Streamlined While both administrations agree on the risk posed by quantum computing, Trump's order simplifies the roadmap. By December 2025, CISA and NSA must publish a list of product categories ready for quantum-safe encryption. TLS 1.3 or its successor must be adopted by 2030. Oversight is split between NSA for national security systems and OMB for civilian agencies. 6. Cyber Sanctions Policy: A Narrowed Scope One of the more politically sensitive changes lies in how sanctions are applied. Biden's order allowed for cyber sanctions against any person involved in disinformation or cyber-enabled threats. Trump's revision limits this to foreign persons only. Domestic political activity is explicitly excluded, a move the administration describes as a safeguard against misuse of cyber enforcement tools. Initial industry feedback has been swift. The executive order's reorientation of cybersecurity priorities is already reverberating across the federal ecosystem, private sector and innovation community. From compliance-light procurement to a tighter national focus on AI risk, the changes are reshaping expectations. Defense integrators and established IT vendors are among the most immediate beneficiaries. By removing detailed compliance documentation, particularly attestations tied to secure software development, the order reduces friction in procurement and lowers operational risk. Contract cycles may accelerate as audit-readiness gives way to implementation focus. This shift rewards incumbents with mature delivery models and embedded federal relationships. With CISA's role redefined and federal oversight of digital identity rolled back, state and local governments may gain more autonomy to design cybersecurity programs that fit local contexts. For well-resourced jurisdictions, this could spur innovation. But for others, especially those lacking talent or funding, decentralization could create new coordination gaps. Additional federal guidance may be needed to prevent fragmentation in national critical infrastructure protection. For enterprises, the EO's elimination of standardized compliance frameworks is a mixed bag. Under the previous EO, the bar for secure software delivery was clear, particularly for organizations that invested in transparency and attestation. Without a common benchmark, proving trustworthiness becomes more subjective. Kevin Bocek, CyberArk's Senior Vice President of Innovation, emphasized that the industry is entering a new era of cybersecurity not only dominated by AI and automation, but also by emerging risks that are not yet widely addressed. 'It is affirming that the EO is serious about safe and secure AI, hopefully laying the foundation to critically address one of the most urgent and overlooked threats: machine identity sprawl,' Bocek noted. According to CyberArk, machine identities now outnumber human identities 82 to 1 within enterprises, yet 68% of organizations lack security controls to protect them. Without federal guidance and clear identity accountability, Bocek warns that this vulnerability could become a significant blind spot in national cybersecurity. His comments underscore the risk of prioritizing operational efficiency over foundational security controls, a concern shared by many CISOs facing exponential identity growth from cloud and AI platforms. Digital identity initiatives long supported by privacy advocates, civic technologists and digital modernization leaders were seen as critical to enabling secure, user-friendly access to government services. They aimed to streamline verification, reduce fraud and close equity gaps in federal access. The Biden administration had embraced digital IDs as the backbone of modern digital government. The Trump administration, however, rescinded these efforts. The accompanying fact sheet expressed concerns that digital identity mandates could be exploited to extend entitlements improperly, particularly to unauthorized immigrants. This decision reflects a broader skepticism toward centralized identity infrastructure and a desire to limit the federal government's role in managing citizen-level credentials. The Biden-era policy positioned artificial intelligence as a strategic asset for defense, encouraging public-private collaboration, dataset sharing and predictive threat detection at scale. The Trump administration's new directive narrows that scope significantly. Instead of promoting AI as a systemwide defense multiplier, the EO limits AI's use to managing system vulnerabilities and tracking indicators of compromise. This reflects concerns about over-reliance on technologies that are still evolving, opaque and in some cases unregulated. As Bocek noted, 'Proper AI development is a tool for predictive defense,' but without protections for the AI itself, it could become a new risk vector. The administration's position is clear: AI should be secured before it is scaled. This AI reframing also signals a philosophical divergence between leveraging AI as a force for innovation versus containing it as a potential liability. Whether that caution slows adoption or increases security maturity remains to be seen, but the message is unambiguous: the era of unchecked AI optimism in federal cybersecurity is over. This executive order is not a one-off. It is part of a broader realignment consistent with the principles laid out in Project 2025, a policy blueprint advocating for streamlined federal governance, stronger executive control, and targeted decentralization of agency authority. More orders are expected, particularly in areas such as offensive cyber capabilities, state-level infrastructure resilience, and the restructuring of agencies like CISA. Trump's June 2025 cybersecurity order is more than a policy shift. it is a recalibration of federal cyber strategy that prioritizes execution over oversight, industry collaboration over mandates, and sovereignty over standardization. For industry leaders, innovators, and government stakeholders alike, the takeaway is clear: cybersecurity is no longer just about compliance. It is about preparedness, adaptability, and national competitiveness in an AI-driven world. The next wave of policy will not be about fine-tuning compliance frameworks but will be about defending digital sovereignty. Those who can pivot fastest, and secure what matters most, will shape the next chapter of America's cyber future.
an hour ago
Trump's big bill also seeks to undo the big bills of Biden and Obama
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Chiseling away at President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. Rolling back the green energy tax breaks from President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. At its core, the Republican 'big, beautiful bill' is more than just an extension of tax breaks approved during President Donald Trump's first term at the White House. The package is an attempt by Republicans to undo, little by little, the signature domestic achievements of the past two Democratic presidents. 'We're going to do what we said we were going to do,' Speaker Mike Johnson said after House passage last month. While the aim of the sprawling 1,000-page plus bill is to preserve an estimated $4.5 trillion in tax cuts that would otherwise expire at year's end if Congress fails to act — and add some new ones, including no taxes on tips — the spending cuts pointed at the Democratic-led programs are causing the most political turmoil. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that 10.9 million fewer people would have health insurance under the GOP bill, including 1.4 million immigrants in the U.S. without legal status who are in state-funded programs. At the same time, lawmakers are being hounded by businesses in states across the nation who rely on the green energy tax breaks for their projects. As the package moves from the House to the Senate, the simmering unrest over curbing the Obama and Biden policies shows just how politically difficult it can be to slash government programs once they become part of civic life. "When he asked me, what do you think the prospects are for passage in the Senate? I said, good — if we don't cut Medicaid," said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recounting his conversation last week with Trump. 'And he said, I'm 100% supportive of that.' Not a single Republican in Congress voted for the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, in 2010, or Biden's inflation act in 2022. Both were approved using the same budget reconciliation process now being employed by Republicans to steamroll Trump's bill past the opposition. Even still, sizable coalitions of GOP lawmakers are forming to protect aspects of both of those programs as they ripple into the lives of millions of Americans. Hawley, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and others are wary of changes to Medicaid and other provisions in the bill that would result in fewer people being able to access health care programs. At the same time, crossover groupings of House and Senate Republicans have launched an aggressive campaign to preserve, at least for some time, the green energy tax breaks that business interests in their states are relying on to develop solar, wind and other types of energy production. Murkowski said one area she's "worried about' is the House bill's provision that any project not under construction within 60 days of the bill becoming law may no longer be eligible for those credits. 'These are some of the things we're working on,' she said. The concerns are running in sometimes opposite directions and complicating the work of GOP leaders who have almost no votes to spare in the House and Senate as they try to hoist the package over Democratic opposition and onto the president's desk by the Fourth of July. While some Republicans are working to preserve the programs from cuts, the budget hawks want steeper reductions to stem the nation's debt load. The CBO said the package would add $2.4 trillion to deficits over the decade. After a robust private meeting with Trump at the White House this week, Republican senators said they were working to keep the bill on track as they amend it for their own priorities. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the president 'made the pitch and the argument for why we need to get the bill done." The disconnect is reminiscent of Trump's first term, when Republicans promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, only to see their effort collapse in dramatic fashion when the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, voted thumbs down for the bill on the House floor. In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, access to health care has grown substantially. Some 80 million people are now enrolled in Medicaid, and the Kaiser Family Foundation reports 41 states have opted to expand their coverage. The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to all adults with incomes up to about $21,500 for an individual, or almost $29,000 for a two-person household. While Republicans no longer campaign on ending Obamacare, advocates warn that the changes proposed in the big bill will trim back at access to health care. The bill proposes new 80 hours of monthly work or community service requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients, age 18 to 64, with some exceptions. It also imposes twice-a-year eligibility verification checks and other changes. Republicans argue that they want to right-size Medicaid to root out waste, fraud and abuse and ensure it's there for those who need it most, often citing women and children. 'Medicaid was built to be a temporary safety net for people who genuinely need it — young, pregnant women, single mothers, the disabled, the elderly,' Johnson told The Associated Press. 'But when when they expanded under Obamacare, it not only thwarted the purpose of the program, it started draining resources.' Initially, the House bill proposed starting the work requirements in January 2029, as Trump's term in the White House would be coming to a close. But conservatives from the House Freedom Caucus negotiated for a quicker start date, in December 2026, to start the spending reductions sooner. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has said the changes are an Obamacare rollback by another name. 'It decimates our health care system, decimates our clean energy system,' Schumer of New York said in an interview with the AP. The green energy tax breaks involve not only those used by buyers of electric vehicles, like Elon Musk's Tesla line, but also the production and investment tax credits for developers of renewables and other energy sources. The House bill had initially proposed a phaseout of those credits over the next several years. But again the conservative Freedom Caucus engineered the faster wind-down — within 60 days of the bill's passage. 'Not a single Republican voted for the Green New Scam subsidies,' wrote Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on social media. 'Not a single Republican should vote to keep them.'
