Young Dems blame Biden and their own party for losing in 2024 as they distance themselves from the old-guard
The Democratic Party is finally saying the quiet part out loud: "Biden should not have run again."
Revelations about President Joe Biden's cognitive decline and his administration's alleged cover-up have returned to the national conversation ahead of next week's release of CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios political correspondent Alex Thompson's book, "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again."
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a 2024 presidential campaign surrogate for President Joe Biden, and considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate, acknowledged on Wednesday that Biden should not have run for a second term.
And Beto O'Rourke, one of Biden's 2020 Democratic primary competitors and the former congressman from Texas, joined the criticism this week, accusing Biden's re-election campaign of failing future generations of Americans.
When pressed by Martha MacCallum on "The Story" on Wednesday about campaigning for Biden in 2024, Khanna said he hadn't had the full picture of Biden's health and mental acuity ahead of his disastrous debate performance, but he admitted, "We should be honest as a party that we made a mistake."
"I do think it's important that, given what has come out, that we take accountability," Khanna said. "Obviously, he should not have run," Khanna said.
Responding to a series of interview clips from early 2024, when Khanna affirmed Biden's intention to run for re-election and described the president as "fully coherent," Khanna said he had been telling the truth.
"Of course, I didn't have the full picture," Khanna added.
O'Rourke took Khanna's call for Democratic accountability a step further on "Pod Save America" this week, calling Biden's decision to run for re-election in 2024 a "terrible mistake."
"Just to be clear: Biden should not have run again. And to be even more clear: He failed this country in the most important job that he had," O'Rourke said.
"In fact, the entire rationale for his presidency the first time, and the rationale he tried to sell us on for his attempt to run for re-election, 'Only I can stop Donald Trump.' And he failed to do that, and it's not just you and me, but our kids and grandkids and the generations that follow that might have to pay the price for this. We might very well lose the greatest country that this world has ever known," O'Rourke said.
An excerpt from Tapper and Thompson's book released by Axios this week revealed that Biden's declining health was "so severe that there were internal discussions about putting the president in a wheelchair, but they couldn't do so until after the election."
In hindsight, Khanna and O'Rourke agreed that Democrats should have had an opportunity to launch their own presidential bids. And now that President Donald Trump has returned to the White House, and an already crowded field of potential 2028 Democratic candidates are mulling presidential campaigns, they said it's important to take accountability for 2024.
"Obviously, there should have been an open primary. And, I don't think that's very difficult that Democrats should just be straight up that he should not have run, now that we have all the facts. There should have been an open primary. I think to move on and move forward, it's important to take accountability and be straightforward with the American people," Khanna said.
O'Rourke said America's future could be in the balance "in part because of the decision that Biden, and those around him, made to run for re-election instead of having an open primary where the greatest talent that the Democratic Party can muster could be on that stage to have a competition of ideas, and track-record and vision and really excite, not just Democrats, but the people of this country who did want change. I mean, if anything was clear coming out of 2024, they wanted change."
The once-2020 Democratic presidential candidate, who is 52 years-old, said the Democrat's Biden failure creates a credibility problem.
"I think that credibility problem is going to persist up until when Democrats say, 'We f---ed up, and we made a terrible mistake,'" O'Rourke said.
Despite O'Rourke's comments this week, he said in an email to supporters through his voting rights organization, Powered by People, last February that, "Donald Trump is the single greatest threat to our democracy. Our best chance to defeat him is to support Joe Biden in this election."
"Amy and I voted for him in the Texas primary . . . and are looking forward to voting for him again in November," he added. "This president has done an extraordinary job of improving our economy, confronting the climate crisis, reducing childhood poverty and fending off the very worst of Donald Trump and the Republican Party's mounting attacks on our most fundamental freedoms."
Another young Democrat and Biden's former National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, continued to defend his former boss at Politico's Security Summit on Thursday, dismissing an allegation that Biden had forgotten his name, and defending his leadership as commander-in-chief.
"What happened in that debate was a shock to me," Sullivan admitted. "I think it was a shock to everybody."
A Biden spokesperson did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
30 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Is Considering Getting Rid of His Red Tesla
President Trump stepped out of a Tesla at the White House in March. (Associated Press)
Forbes
37 minutes ago
- Forbes
Beyond The Rainbow: 5 Essential Tips For Supporting LGBTQ+ Employees Beyond June
Protest defending the human rights fro LGBTQi people Every year, June brings rainbow logos and statements in support of LGBTQ+ employees and community, and this year is no different. Pull back the curtains on these public signals of support, you find companies are pulling back on their support for internal and external pride events – and a legal landscape rife with challenges and cultural backlash exacerbating workplace stress for LGBTQ+ employees. According to the Center on American Progress, 36% of LGBTQI+ adults experienced discrimination in 2024, compared with 17% of non-LGBTQI+ adults, while almost half (47%) of LGBTQ employees reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work during their lifetime. For transgender employees, the situation is even more dire. The legal landscape has become downright hostile for transgender communities. This year alone, over 900 anti-trans bills have been introduced across 49 states, with over 100 signed into law. Legislative action's impact has also seeped into work, with 47% reporting workplace discrimination or harassment in the past year and 75% of transgender employees having experienced workplace discrimination at some point in their careers. These laws, many of which employers need to be in compliance with, target everything from gender-affirming care and bathroom access to name and pronoun use. Meanwhile, LGBTQ+ discrimination charges have surged by over 144% since 2013, creating both moral imperatives and business risks for employers who fail to act. For many LGBTQ+ employees, work may be the only place where they feel somewhat protected. This creates both a massive responsibility for employers and a real opportunity to make a difference. Here are five essential strategies for organizations serious about supporting their LGBTQ+ workforce beyond the rainbow logo. Jennifer Laurie, a former Chief People Officer and founder of the Equitable HR Guild, offers five recommendations to employers, noting 'organizations have both a responsibility and an opportunity to become sources of genuine protection and support.' LGBTQ+ workplace safety starts with explicitly naming protections and enforcing organizational policies. Laurie says, 'The goal is not just to say the right things, but to build workplaces where people can exhale and feel safe being fully themselves.' Companies have to go beyond generic diversity or anti-harassment statements to establish clear, specific policies that protect employees based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. This is increasingly important as federal interpretations shift and state-level laws create new threats. At a minimum, effective infrastructure includes robust reporting mechanisms, swift response protocols, and consistent accountability measures - regardless of sector and size of organizations. The true measure of the efficacy of good policies and practices according to Laurie is, 'when harm occurs, LGBTQ+ employees know they will be believed, protected, and not penalized for speaking up.' For their peers in the HR world, this means training people and culture teams on LGBTQ+-specific issues, establishing clear investigation procedures, and ensuring follow-up care for affected employees. Ernst and Young's research highlighted in Harvard Business Review shows that 97% of participants who rated their organization highly on LGBTQ+ inclusion expect to remain with their employer for the next year, while organizations with poor inclusion face higher turnover, reputational damage, and legal risks. Access to safe and dignified healthcare remains a critical concern, particularly in states with bans on gender-affirming care and adult anti-trans legislation that seeks to make this care unavailable. Organizations need to anticipate and address gaps in coverage, especially when insurers deny claims or employees navigate hostile state laws. This might include offering out-of-network reimbursements, travel stipends for care access, or hands-on support navigating insurance claims. Beyond healthcare, Laurie suggests, 'benefits packages should reflect diverse family structures and relationship types'. This may look like recognizing chosen family arrangements, providing inclusive parental leave policies, and ensuring that all employee assistance programs are LGBTQ+-affirming. HR leaders can ask themselves if policies meet people's specific needs without requiring them to advocate for themselves constantly. 'While the burden shouldn't fall on LGBTQ+ employees to drive change', Laurie notes that 'when organizations create a culture of trust and safety, employees may be willing to share feedback or flag gaps - especially when it's clear that leadership will take action. HR leaders can use that input to evolve support systems in response to changing needs and legal landscapes.' People managers have an outsized influence over employee experience, and the extent to which LGBTQ+ employees feel safe at work - even in fully remote teams. 40% of LGBTQ+ workers report having to withhold their identity at their job due to fear of being stigmatized or facing violence, often based on their immediate supervisor's behavior and competence. Even in spaces where they should feel safe, they do not. Kimfer Flanery Rye, the founder of Inclusion Equals, is increasingly hearing 'employees fearful of associating with an Employee Resource Group (ERG) or affinity group because they worry it might 'out' them.' Can we imagine accepting an abysmal score and a patent lack of employee safety in any other aspect of enterprise? Laurie is deeply aware of the cultural shifts. 'There is less visible allyship, more tolerance of homophobia and transphobia, and a widespread feeling that the protections we thought we had are not as solid as we believed. People are feeling exposed, isolated, and unsure of who will stand with them if something happens, at work or beyond.' In their opinion, managers don't need to become identity experts, but they must know how to create respectful environments, respond to harm, and support their teams without placing the burden back on affected employees. We need to keep normalizing inclusive language, correcting missteps immediately, and avoiding the temptation to freeze or avoid uncomfortable situations. The best training is one that covers practical scenarios: What do you do when you witness harassment? How do you create team norms that include everyone from day one? According to Laurie, 'inclusion isn't an extra responsibility—it's a core management competency that organizations must develop systematically.' Queer and transgender people's bathroom use has been used to create division by conservative bad actors. Here's the thing, no employee should be left to negotiate basic dignity on their own. Clear, affirming policies for bathroom and facility access are a must, even for organizations with remote or hybrid teams. Physical safety extends to everyday workplace design: Do name badges and ID systems reflect chosen names? Are company events and gatherings designed with diverse attendees in mind? These details matter enormously for daily comfort and inclusion. Kirk Mead, the founder of Carrington Group invites us to think about 'social safety' when planning for LGBTQ+ employees. He says, 'Social safety is a negotiated set of conditions cultivated and cared for through community with those we wish to experience it.' He adds, 'I cannot make something safe for you if I have not made it safe with you.' Organizations can no longer assume domestic travel is safe and need to proactively think proactively about travel accommodations for LGBTQ+ employees. With varying state laws and some locations such as Texas and Florida pose real safety risks. Laurie shares, 'offering travel opt-outs, additional safety planning, or alternative arrangements demonstrates genuine care for employee wellbeing.' Planning should also extend to virtual spaces, including video call etiquette, name display protocols, and digital platform accessibility. Silence is never the neutral choice. Especially when employees' rights and safety are under attack. Organizations that benefit from LGBTQ+ talent and leadership have a responsibility to speak up when harmful laws and rhetoric target these same communities. Laurie notes, 'this doesn't mean issuing statements about every political development, but it does mean recognizing when legislation directly affects your workforce and choosing not to look away.' Public advocacy can take many forms: supporting advocacy organizations, opposing discriminatory legislation, joining business coalitions for equality, or simply making internal statements that acknowledge current challenges. In the past year, 35% of LGBTQ+ workers have heard negative comments about LGBTQ+ people at work, making visible leadership support even more crucial. If public advocacy isn't feasible, organizations can still acknowledge what's happening internally through thoughtful communications to staff, leadership modeling in meetings, or creating space to discuss the impact of current events. Employees notice who speaks up and who only shows support when it's convenient. Elyse Gordon, Director of Programs at Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy, says this can occur in a myriad of ways, "For managers, it could mean tracking the news and being proactive with messaging to your team so they know you're paying attention; for leaders, it can mean offering a supportive lunch and learn or processing space for employees who are navigating the current political environment. LGBTQ+ employees and allies notice when these are missing. The silence is deafening." Organizations should understand that consequences of inadequate action are not only severe for employees, but will be harmful in the long run for the organizations themselves; for individuals , it means showing up to work in survival mode, constantly scanning for threats, and often hiding essential parts of their identity leading to burnout, isolation and talented people opting out of leadership opportunities or leaving entirely. For organizations, the costs include broken trust, higher turnover, reputational damage, and missed opportunities for innovation. More fundamentally, workplaces that fail to protect LGBTQ+ employees become sources of harm rather than safety—a reputation that's difficult to repair once established. Creating truly inclusive workplaces for LGBTQ+ employees requires sustained commitment that extends far beyond Pride Month proclamations. It demands policy changes, skills development, resource allocation, and leadership courage. Most importantly, it requires recognizing that in this moment, doing nothing is not neutral—it's a choice that employees notice and remember. Angie Nuevacamina, Redmond City Councilmember emphasizes, 'Culture change doesn't happen at the margins—it starts at the top. When executive leaders visibly engage in a meaningful way, allocate resources, and hold themselves accountable, it signals that LGBTQ+ inclusion isn't optional or seasonal—it's a core organizational value.' The organizations that step up now, when support matters most, will not only protect vulnerable employees but also build the kind of workplace culture that attracts and retains top talent regardless of identity. In an era of mounting challenges, employers have the opportunity to become trusted sources of safety and affirmation. The question isn't whether you can afford to act—it's whether you can afford not to.
New York Times
38 minutes ago
- New York Times
LA28 organisers say President Donald Trump's travel ban will not affect Olympic Games
Organizers of the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles have said that a travel ban introduced by United States President Donald Trump will not disrupt the Games. Citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar (Burma), Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will be banned from entering the U.S. when the ban, which applies to immigrants and non-immigrants, goes into effect Monday. Advertisement Partial restrictions have also been placed on nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The White House confirmed that 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics,' would be exempt from the ban when it was announced Wednesday. Fans from the affected countries, however, are not exempt from the restrictions. Reynold Hoover, chief executive officer of the organising committee LA28, said that exemptions allowed for a 'wide-open Games' and that the ban would not affect the Olympics themselves. 'The important thing for us is that the federal government and this administration recognized the importance of the Olympics and the Games,' he told Reuters on Thursday. 'There is a carve-out in the order in the travel ban that allows for and assures that there will be access to the Games for the athletes and their families and officials.' LA28 chairman Casey Wasserman said that he was confident that those involved in the Olympics would not be impacted. 'All the constituents that you know so well that come to the city pre-Games and during the Games — it's very clear that the federal government understands that that's an environment that they will be accommodating and provide for,' Wasserman said at a news conference Thursday, via AFP. 'So we have great confidence that that will only continue. It has been the case to date, and it will certainly be the case going forward through the Games.' Wasserman added that he does not expect the ban to affect ticket sales for the Olympics, per Reuters. In addition to the men's soccer World Cup, which is being hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico in 2026, and the Olympics, the White House proclamation says that athletes, coaches and immediate relatives at any 'other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State' would also be exempt. Advertisement When asked directly on Thursday if this constituted the FIFA Club World Cup or the Gold Cup, which are both being held in the U.S. this summer, the State Department told The Athletic: 'We are implementing the President's directive to secure U.S. borders and protect American communities and citizens.' A White House spokesperson told The Athletic that both tournaments are deemed major events, which would allow Haiti to compete at the Gold Cup and players from affected countries to represent their teams at the Club World Cup.
