'Befuddled' And Exhausted During Debate Prep: All The Allegations About Joe Biden's Mental Decline In New Books
Former President Joe Biden appeared exhausted and disconnected from reality during his 2024 campaign, but his inner circle was 'delusional' and genuinely believed he could win, according to a new book, among several in recent months with damning new allegations about the former president's mental state amid the collapse of his presidential campaign last year.
Former U.S. President Joe Biden poses backstage on opening night of "Othello" on Broadway at The ... More Barrymore Theatre on March 23, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Bruce Glikas/WireImage)
Former CBS producer and author Chris Whipple's book, 'Uncharted: How Trump Beat Biden, Harris, and the Odds in the Wildest Campaign in History,' reportedly details how top Biden adviser Ron Klain described Biden as 'fatigued, befuddled, and disengaged,' in the lead-up to the debate, and said he ended one debate-prep session early and fell asleep by the pool.
Biden was so preoccupied with foreign policy, Klain said he 'wondered half-seriously if Biden thought he was president of NATO,' Whipple wrote.
Biden 'didn't look well' and 'didn't sound vital' several days after the debate at a donor event, where he used a path of fluorescent tape on the floor to guide his steps and a teleprompter for what were supposed to be unscripted remarks, The Hill reporter and author Amie Parnes and NBC reporter Jonathan Allen wrote in 'Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House.'
CNN's Jake Tapper, who moderated the Trump-Biden debate, and Axios' Alex Thompson, coauthored a third yet-to-be-released book, 'Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,' in which they say, 'Biden, his family and his team let their self-interest and fear of another Trump term justify trying to put an at times addled old man in the Oval Office.'
Whipple concluded that Biden's inner circle genuinely believed Biden was capable of serving another term, characterizing the mindset as 'delusion and denial,' rather than a cover-up—similarly, Klain told the Guardian in response to Whipple's book that he 'never doubted the president's mental acuity,' but that Biden failed, or refused, to grasp what was required to be successful in the campaign.
Despite the confidence of Biden and his inner circle, Democratic National Committee officials were working on contingency plans for Biden's potential exit from the race as early as 2023 and aides to Kamala Harris even 'strategized around the possibility that Biden might die in office,' according to 'Fight.'
Biden plans to write a book about his presidency and his decision to exit the race, multiple outlets reported in January.
'I am convinced that Joe Biden's inner circle was convinced that Joe Biden was capable of governing, and they believed that he could do it for another four years,' Whipple told NPR. People who visited Biden in the Oval Office said he was 'on top of every nuance of Middle Eastern policy' Whipple wrote in his book, concluding that, 'Joe Biden, behind closed doors, was governing capably,' but he wasn't mentally or physically equipped to run a successful campaign.
Biden, 82, publicly dismissed polls that showed voters did not want him to run for another term and insisted he could beat Trump since he had done it before, despite showing blatant signs of aging in both public and private that grew more frequent as the 2024 campaign season neared. Biden's political career effectively ended moments into his June 26 debate with Trump, when he lost his train of thought and continued his shaky performance throughout the 90-minute program. He announced his decision to step down on July 21, amid growing calls from Democrats in Congress to withdraw. Trump's decisive win over Harris, and Republicans' dominance in House and Senate races, left the Democratic party in tatters without a clear messaging strategy or prominent leaders. Many still blame Biden for the 2024 fiasco. Polls show the party's popularity has dropped to record lows. Biden, however, has remained defiant that he could have beaten Trump, he told USA Today in an interview published in January, though he seemed to acknowledge for the first time he might not have been healthy enough to serve another term. 'Who the hell knows?' he said when asked the question.
Biden Admits He Might Be Too Old To Have Served Another Term (Forbes)
Biden Loses Train Of Thought And Corrects Himself Repeatedly In Debate With Trump (Forbes)
Biden Drops Out Of 2024 Race—Here's What Happens Next (Forbes)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
How Putin could open a new and dangerous front against Ukraine
You're forgiven if you haven't spent a lot of time thinking about Moldova's parliamentary elections coming up in September. Moldova's not a member of NATO or the European Union, and unless there's a bottle of Moldovan wine on the table, most Americans don't give the small southeastern European nation much thought. It is the least-visited country in Europe.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Justice Department says Trump can undo national monuments; California areas could be on list
President Trump has the authority to abolish national monuments set aside by past presidents to protect areas of historic and scientific interest, the Justice Department said in an opinion this week, potentially laying the groundwork to dismantle California's two newest monuments — Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands. The May 27 legal opinion released Tuesday overturns a more than 80-year-old Justice Department determination that presidents can't revoke national monuments created by their predecessors under the Antiquities Act. The finding follows an Interior Department effort to explore altering monuments as part of a push to expand U.S. energy production, a move that set off alarm bells among conservationists that certain public lands could be on the chopping block. Then-President Biden signed proclamations designating Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands national monuments in California's desert and far north shortly before leaving office early this year. The Justice Department, in its new opinion, said it was asked to look into whether the Antiquities Act — the 1906 law permitting presidents to create monuments — can be used to revoke them. The opinion, titled, 'Revocation of Prior Monument Designations,' says it can. In the 50-page document, Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Lanora Pettit wrote that presidents can find 'that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act's protections; and such an alteration can have the effect of eliminating entirely the reservation of the parcel of land previously associated with a national monument.' Since its passage, the Antiquities Act has been used by 18 presidents — split evenly between Republicans and Democrats — to designate monuments. California is home to 21 national monuments, more than any other state. During a Wednesday hearing in Washington, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) questioned Interior Secretary Doug Burgum about the opinion, which he called 'extremely dangerous.' He specifically asked what the secretary's intentions were with regard to the Golden State's newest monuments, which he described as enjoying strong bipartisan support. 'We have a responsibility and direction to take a look at the recently created ones,' Burgum replied. 'There are people in communities, when we create restrictions on land use, that does restrict some of their economic opportunity, and we want to listen to those as well,' he said, adding that the department is seeking 'a balanced approach' and would be open to further dialogue. Padilla and fellow Sen. Adam Schiff were among the federal lawmakers from California who pushed for the creation of the monuments. 'The Trump administration is seeking to rewrite the Antiquities Act without the approval of Congress and erase all precedent prohibiting the elimination of lands designated as a national monument,' Schiff said in a statement. 'And, continuing his assault on the Golden State, the president seems to have at least two California treasures in mind: Chuckwalla and Sáttítla national monuments.' 'But the law is clear: Congress did not intend for the Antiquities Act to give Donald Trump or any other president the power to reverse the decades of hard work undertaken by conservationists, tribal leaders, and local California communities to safeguard precious lands and cultural sites,' he added. Chuckwalla spans 624,000 acres of dramatic canyons and rugged land adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park in Southern California, while Sáttítla encompasses 224,000 acres of pristine forests and unique geological features near the Oregon border. Native Americans led the charge to safeguard the land they consider sacred. Critics of the way the Antiquities Act has been used to set aside vast tracts of land often point to a mandate for monuments to be limited to the 'smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.' But public lands advocates note that the law has long been used by presidents to protect large landmasses — including the designation of the Grand Canyon by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. Padilla said that Western states skew large relative to their Eastern counterparts, 'so the appropriateness and size of monuments and other areas of designation tend to be larger.' John Leshy, an emeritus professor at UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and a former solicitor at the Interior Department, sees the new opinion as a largely symbolic gesture being made by the Trump administration on behalf of a faction of the Republican Party that 'hates public lands.' 'I think they're throwing that out to try to placate them and say, 'We're on your side,'' he said. 'But will that quiet them down until the president actually takes some sort of action? I don't know.' Even before California's youngest monuments were designated, there were fears they could be rolled back by the Trump administration. During his first term, Trump sharply reduced the boundaries of two monuments in Utah — Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante — and stripped protections from a marine monument off the coast of New England to allow commercial fishing. The Biden administration reversed the changes. In February, Burgum issued an order that many saw as opening the door to potentially eliminating or shrinking monuments. He directed his assistant secretaries to 'review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands,' citing a federal statute corresponding to the law that allows presidents to create monuments. Then, a little over a month later, the Trump administration caused confusion when it issued and then appeared to roll back an announcement implying the president had rescinded his predecessor's orders creating Chuckwalla and Sáttítla. Last month, a federal suit was filed by a Texas-based conservative think tank on behalf of plaintiffs to invalidate the Chuckwalla monument, arguing Biden had overstepped his authority when he created it. Some believed California's new monuments were at most risk of being targeted, in part because Trump might seek to undo his predecessor's actions. Whether presidents have the authority to alter monuments is hotly contested. Litigation challenging Trump's previous monument reductions was still pending when Biden reversed them and the matter was never settled. 'Courts have never ruled on this issue one way or another,' Leshy said. 'They've just been silent on whether one president can undo another president's proclamation.' If Trump moves to undo monuments in California, litigation is likely. Krystian Lahage of the Mojave Desert Land Trust, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the California desert, said his group is trying to raise awareness of the broad support for Chuckwalla. Sunday marked the 119th anniversary of the Antiquities Act, and to celebrate the group co-hosted an event that Lahage said drew more than 100 people. There was an off-roading tour, an exploration of the geology and wildlife, stargazing and a community BBQ. 'Our goal there was to show folks all the different things they can do in the national monument — and what it's protecting,' he said.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Forget tariffs — GOP proposals on student loans will crack the economy
While economists and the general public are preoccupied with the threat to U.S. economic growth stemming from Donald Trump's tariff policies, serious as that is, they may be overlooking another serious threat. This one comes from Trump's approach, abetted by Republicans in Congress, to the student loan crisis. It's not a trivial matter. Nearly 43 million Americans owe a combined $1.6 trillion in student debt, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Education. Efforts to relieve borrowers of this weight invariably proposed by Democrats have been stymied by conservatives on Capitol Hill and federal courts. Now things look worse. There's no longer any talk in Congress of student loan relief. It's been supplanted by partisan efforts to increase the burden, by raising the costs of student loans and closing off paths for struggling borrowers to manage their payments. 'Instead of helping the 5 million borrowers that have fallen into default and the millions more that are behind and now at risk of default later this year, this Administration appears set on inflicting massive economic harm on millions of Americans—a decision that will further drag down an already struggling economy,' Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for the Student Borrower Protection Center, said recently. The damage wreaked by Trump policies on student loans is already showing up in economic statistics. According to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about 9.7 million student loan borrowers have seen their credit scores plummet since late last year, when delinquencies and defaults on those loans began to be listed on credit reports. Many borrowers who enjoyed superprime credit scores (760 or higher on scales that typically top out at 850) could see their scores decline to subprime levels below 620. For those borrowers, the results could include 'reduced credit limits, higher interest rates for new loans, and overall lower credit access,' the N.Y. Fed reported. The credit score declines resulting from the resumption of college loan payments was a factor in a sharp increase in the rejection rate for mortgage refinancings, to nearly 42% in February from 26.7% a year earlier, to 14% on car loans from 1.5% a year earlier, and to 22% on credit card applications from 16.6% over the same period. The consequences could be even broader. Many landlords check credit scores to judge potential tenants, those with low scores might be turned away. Fewer mortgage refinancings, auto purchases, and less credit generally are all drags on the economy. It's true that payments on student loans resumed during the Biden administration. Payments were suspended on federal student loans and and interest rates temporarily set at 0% during the pandemic emergency, beginning March 13, 2020. The pause ended as of October 2023, but the Biden administration provided a one-year 'on-ramp' during which missed or delayed payments wouldn't show up in borrowers' credit reports. That ended early this year, triggering the credit score crash for borrowers in arrears or default. Biden's efforts to relieve the burden on millions of student borrowers were stymied by federal court rulings in lawsuits brought by conservative activists. More recently, the Trump administration has proceeded to tighten the screws on borrowers. On April 21, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced that defaulted loans would be put in collection, subjecting the borrowers to having their wages garnished and their federal tax refunds and even Social Security benefits seized to make the payments. (Responding to a public uproar, the administration backed away from plans to take Social Security benefits from an estimated 450,000 defaulting borrowers aged 62 and older who are receiving Social Security.) 'American taxpayers will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for irresponsible student loan policies,' McMahon said. Pressure on households struggling to afford higher education will be intensified by provisions in the budget bill passed narrowly on May 22 by the GOP majority in the House. The measure, which is pending before the GOP-majority Senate, takes several whacks at student aid and consequently the accessibility of higher education. Among its provisions are these: — A change in the calculation of permissible student loans. Under current law, the figure is based on the cost of the program a student is attending. The proposal would peg loans to the median cost of all similar programs. That would leave students at higher-priced universities (such as private institutions) without the ability to access federal loans for the full cost of their education. As it happens, no system currently exists for determining the median prices. At the Department of Education's office that would make the calculation, almost all the employees have been fired. — The bill eliminates direct subsidized student loans for undergraduates, which don't accrue interest while the borrower is in school. — The bill raises the maximum in federal loans that a student can take out to $50,000, up from the current $31,000. But the current limit includes up to $23,000 in subsidized loans. Since those would no longer exist, the full amount would be in costlier unsubsidized loans. The Student Loan Protection Center calculates that the average borrower who takes out the maximum annual loan amount would pay nearly $2,900 more in interest over the current amount. — The GOP would eliminate the SAVE plan, which was implemented by the Biden administration but blocked by a federal appeals court ruling in a lawsuit brought by red states. The SAVE plan required enrollees to pay 5% of their discretionary income annually, with unpaid balances forgiven after 20 years (25 years for those with graduate loans). Those with original loans of $12,000 or less would have their balances forgiven after 10 years. Elimination of the plan would affect about 8 million student borrowers. — The GOP would scrap rules allowing borrowers to temporarily defer payments due to unemployment or economic hardship and limits. It also places new limits on forbearance — a temporary pause on loan payments — which states loans can't be in forbearance for more than 9 months during any 24-month period. For all that Republicans crow about removing the burden on taxpayers from the student loan crisis, the real beneficiary of these changes would be the private student loan industry, such as banks and private equity firms, which long have hankered after the opportunities created by student loans. With fewer options available from federal programs, student borrowers would increasingly be thrust into the welcoming arms of Wall Street. That's a problem for student borrowers, because the private lending industry has a wretched history, rife with deceptive practices. Private lenders were the subject of more than 40% of student loan-related complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since 2011, even though they accounted for only 8% of outstanding loans. Private loans, moreover, lack some of the consumer protections traditionally provided by government loans, including deferrals, and typically carry higher interest rates. With their actions and proposals, McMahon and the GOP lawmakers have underscored the majestic hypocrisy of the student debt debate. Among the most common arguments against relief is that canceling existing debt would be unfair to all those who already paid off their loans. As I've explained in the past, this is the argument from pure selfishness and a formula for permanent governmental paralysis. In a healthy society government policy moves ahead by taking note of existing inequities and striving to address them. Following the implications of the 'I paid, why shouldn't you' camp to their natural conclusion means that we wouldn't have Social Security, Medicare or the Affordable Care Act today. Among the most common claims is that debt relief would disproportionately benefit wealthy families; in fact, low-income households would benefit the most, the Roosevelt Institute has shown. As I pointed out last year, among the Republicans who weighed in with tendentious lectures about meeting one's obligation to pay back a loan were members of Congress who had taken out loans of hundreds of thousands of dollars each from the pandemic-era Paycheck Protection Program — and had them completely forgiven. The GOP's lame defense was that the PPP loans were not expected to be repaid, if they were used to keep the borrowers' workers employed during the pandemic. Couple of problems with that: Days before Biden took office, the Small Business Administration deleted almost all the database red flags designating potentially questionable or fraudulent loans subject to further review. The red flags included signs that a recipient company had laid off workers or were ineligible to participate in the program. As many as 2.3 million loans, including 54,000 loans of more than $1 million each, thus may have received a free pass. Then there's the questionable ethics of elected officials taking massive advantage of a program they themselves enacted. They could have made themselves ineligible, but where's the fun in that? I observed separately that many congressional critics of loan relief had themselves received their college, graduate and professional educations as gifts from the taxpayers: They had attended public (i.e., taxpayer-supported) state universities, typically in an era when tuition for state residents was much lower than today, even accounting for inflation. Among those who were apparently educated on the taxpayers' dimes is Secretary McMahon, a North Carolina native who holds a degree from East Carolina University, a public institution supported by the taxpayers of North Carolina. I asked McMahon's office to reconcile her statement on student loans with her education at a public university, but received no reply. The threat to the economy is real and immediate. Households burdened with student debt tend to delay or forgo homeownership and face difficulties in starting a family or building up savings. Eradicating student debt, or even materially reducing its burden, would produce a significant economic stimulus. But who in the White House or on Capitol Hill is even listening?
