Trump supporters score political points from Biden's cancer diagnosis: 'democrats knew'
From Alex Jones' Infowars to keyboard warriors on X, how the Republican right are already exploiting Biden's tragedy to score political points.
Former US President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with an 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer, with doctors confirming the disease has already spread to his bones.
The shocking announcement came via a statement from Biden's office today, confirming that the 82-year-old sought medical attention last week after experiencing urinary symptoms. Medics discovered a prostate nodule, and by Friday, a devastating diagnosis had been delivered – a Grade 5 advanced prostate cancer with signs of rapid spread.
However, the tragic diagnosis has triggered heated reaction online, particularly from right-wing figures.
Infowars, the controversial platform founded but no longer owned by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, posted on X: "It's Official — The 2020 Election Was Stolen, Joe Biden Was Never Legitimately President! And Now, Right On Time, He's Diagnosed with Aggressive Cancer! Alex Jones is LIVE, Exposing the Truth, Breaking Major News & Covering the Latest Shocking Developments."
Conservative commentator and YourVoice America host Bill Mitchell questioned how the cancer had gone undetected for so long, saying: "Here's my question. If this prostate cancer is so advanced it has spread to his bones, how did his White House physician not diagnose and treat it earlier? Early diagnosis and treatment is key to survival. Joe Biden has likely had prostrate cancer for 4 to 6 years!"
Tim Pool, host of Timcast IRL and The Culture War Podcast , also weighed in, writing: "Joe Biden has Cancer with metastasis to the bone. This is considered advanced. If he had the best medical care and screenings for 4 years they'd have found it and it means he's likely had it since before dropping out. Democrats knew."
What has Trump said about Biden's cancer?
However, President Trump himself took a measured and compassionate tone via his Truth Social platform: "Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden's recent medical diagnosis. We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery."
Despite the severity of Biden's illness, there is a glimmer of hope. The cancer is described as 'hormone-sensitive,' which could allow for more effective management. The statement shared by Biden's office detailed: "Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms."
It continued: "On Friday he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterised by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone. While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management."
"The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians."
Did anyone know Biden had cancer before he was President?
Biden, who served as President from 2020 to 2024, chose not to seek re-election, passing the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris. His decision came amid mounting questions over his age and fitness, particularly as he prepared to face off again with Donald Trump.
Despite his personal physician declaring him 'fit to serve' following a February 2024 assessment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Centre, concerns had continued to swirl.
Now, a forthcoming book is set to lift the lid further. Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, due out Tuesday (May 20), is authored by CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson.
It reportedly reveals Biden's advisers had at one point discussed whether he might need a wheelchair if he pushed for a second term. The behind-the-scenes concern came after a series of stumbles and public falls — including a viral moment in June 2023 when Biden tripped during a commencement speech at the US Air Force Academy and had to be helped up by Secret Service agents.
Observers on social media and medical experts alike commented on his slowed gait and frequent falls, suggesting possible neurological or spinal issues.
What did the Whitehouse say about Biden's health?
While White House aides downplayed the incidents as normal signs of ageing, Biden's eventual decision to withdraw from the 2024 race followed months of internal party debate.
His exit cleared the path for Kamala Harris, though some Democrats believe it came too late. Senator Amy Klobuchar said this weekend: "We needed a real debate about the future of the country. Instead, we were stuck in a waiting game."
As the former president begins a cautious return to public life, he and wife Jill Biden appeared on The View last week, sparking a mixed response from Democrats about how involved he should be in the upcoming 2026 midterms.
Just last Friday, Biden attended a Philadelphia hospital for more tests on what was initially identified as a 'small nodule' – a worrying sign that required 'further evaluation,' according to a spokesperson.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Families file suit challenging Arkansas law that requires Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Seven Arkansas families filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging an upcoming state requirement that public school classrooms have posted copies of the Ten Commandments, saying the new law will violate their constitutional rights. The federal lawsuit challenges a measure Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law earlier this year, similar to a requirement enacted by Louisiana and one that Texas' governor has said he'll sign. The Arkansas law takes effect in August and requires the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in public school classrooms and libraries. "Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library — rendering them unavoidable — unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture," the lawsuit said. The suit was filed on behalf of the families by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The lawsuit names four school districts in northwest Arkansas — Fayetteville, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Springdale — as defendants. A spokesperson for Fayetteville schools said the district would not comment on pending litigation, while the other three districts did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the lawsuit and considering options. Attorneys for the families, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist or nonreligious, said they planned to ask the federal judge in Fayetteville for a preliminary injunction blocking the law's enforcement. The attorneys say the law violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the families' First Amendment rights. "By imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children," Samantha Stinson, one of the plaintiffs, said in a news release. Louisiana was the first state to enact such a requirement, and a federal judge blocked the measure before it was to take effect Jan 1. Proponents of Louisiana's law say that ruling only applies to the five school boards listed in the suit, but The Associated Press is unaware of any posters being displayed in schools as the litigation continues.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Southern Baptist same-sex marriage resolution rings an alarm
That's a lot of animosity packed into one declaration. But it's one that Republicans seem increasingly interested in supporting. What's scary is that there are now efforts to bring same-sex marriage back to the Supreme Court with the intention of overturning Obergefell v. Hodges. Republicans in the Idaho House of Representatives has passed a resolution to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decade-old ruling. Eight other state legislatures introduced similar measures affecting the legality of same-sex marriage. It's not just outrageous that so many legislative officials are trying to do away with gay marriage. It's terrifying to the LGBTQ+ people you know. The Southern Baptist resolution is a harrowing sign of the legal fight that could be around the corner. Opinion: A trans athlete won in California. Her peers cheered - and exposed the truth. Polling says gay marriage is popular. Do Republicans care? Same-sex marriage still has majority support in the United States, according to polling. In a Gallup survey conducted in May 2025 , 68% of respondents say same-sex marriages should have the same rights as traditional marriages, compared with 29% of people who disagreed. While that's a hopeful number, there are some caveats. Support for gay marriage has decreased from 71% in 2023. Republican support has dropped to 41% from 55% in 2021 and 2022, and is now the lowest it's been since 2016. Opinion: Republicans are going after marriage. LGBTQ+ people like me tried to warn you. Now that a denomination with nearly 13 million members is coming out against gay marriage, I fear that we will continue to see a decline in support. Even if gay marriage retains support, the Supreme Court already went against popular opinion when it overturned Roe v. Wade. In his opinion on that issue, Justice Clarence Thomas said he believed the court should reconsider Obergefell. He said the quiet part out loud. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. What happened to 'love thy neighbor'? Guess not if they're LGBTQ? While I grew up within a different denomination, my childhood in North Carolina was spent around Southern Baptists. I have attended their services; I have been to their funerals. I know LGBTQ+ people who were raised in their churches, and my heart breaks for them and their families. While Christianity has become burdened by dogma and interpretations, the most important lesson, the one that is universal, regardless of your denomination, is that you're supposed to love your neighbor as you love yourself. To me, this means wanting them to have the same rights as you have, including in your marriage. It is shameful that Southern Baptists have lost sight of this message and instead want to advocate for fewer rights for LGBTQ+ people. But it's not surprising given where Trump's Republican Party is trending on the topic. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeno on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Paul Keating says US Aukus review could ‘save Australia from itself' as sceptics hail chance to exit pact
A chorus of Aukus sceptics, including former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, say a US review represents an 'opportunity' for Australia to escape a controversial deal that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and leave Australia, ultimately, less able to defend itself. The US department of defense has announced a 30-day review of the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine deal 'ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's 'America first' agenda,' a Pentagon official said, 'and that the defense industrial base is meeting our needs'. Keating said that the review 'might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself … from the most poorly conceived defence procurement program ever adopted by an Australian government'. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email He said in a Thursday statement that the Pentagon review was 'subjecting the deal to the kind of scrutiny that should have been applied to AUKUS in the first instance', describing the deal as 'hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson, and the confused President, Joe Biden – put together on an English beach, a world away from where Australia's strategic interests primarily lie.' Keating said the US would lose nothing by walking away from the deal and still 'achieve what they have been after all along … turning Australia 'into a US nuclear-armed fort pointed against China'. Turnbull, whose pre-existing submarine deal with French giant Naval was dramatically torn up in favour of the Aukus agreement in 2021, said Australia should 'wake up' and review the agreement itself. 'The UK is conducting a review of Aukus. The US department of defence is conducting a review of Aukus. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review,' he said on X on earlier Thursday. 'Our parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?' Former foreign minister Bob Carr said Australia and the US needed to come to a 'mutual agreement' that recognised Aukus served neither's interests, and allowed either side to withdraw without weakening the alliance. 'The Trump Administration has picked a notable sceptic of Aukus [Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's under secretary of defense for policy] to conduct the review for one reason: they know they won't be able to supply the boats to Australia because their own ship building lags so significantly,' Carr told Guardian Australia. 'It is best for us that we don't linger over this, because America's got the option of increasing the cost to us and forcing us to accept the basing of a sizeable submarine fleet in our ports, every vessel being a nuclear target should there be war between the US and China.' The former South Australian senator Rex Patrick, an ex-submariner and established Aukus critic, said the US review was a 'great opportunity' for Australia to walk away from an increasingly unworkable agreement that would jeopardise Australia's sovereignty and capacity to defend itself. 'There is no doubt this project is both unaffordable and highly risky, and delivers a solution to Australia a decade after it's supposedly needed.' Senator David Shoebridge, Greens defence and foreign affairs spokesperson, said Australia needed to pursue more independent defence and foreign policies, 'that do not require us to bend our will and shovel wealth to an increasingly erratic and reckless Trump USA'. He said the Aukus deal made Australia a 'junior partner' in American military strategy, rather than an equal ally. 'Donald Trump is erratic, reckless and careless of America's allies and alliances but he does have one fairly constant trait, he puts US interests first and allies last. 'The USA is reviewing whether to scrap Aukus while Australia has just handed the US an $800 million Aukus tribute payment. We're locked into a $375bn deal that our 'partner' might walk away from.' Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Shoebridge said he believed the US review would find that America could not spare the submarines to sell to Australia, and argued parliament should launch a full inquiry into the Aukus deal, before the government 'wastes more billions on submarines we will never see … [in] a deal that ties us to America's military aggression against China.' Under pillar one of the agreement, signed in 2021, the US will sell Australia between three and five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, with the first to be delivered in 2032. These will replace Australia's ageing Collins class diesel-electric submarines before Australia's own Aukus nuclear-powered submarines can be built. By the 'late 2030s', according to Australia's submarine industry strategy, UK shipbuilders will deliver the first specifically designed-and-built Aukus submarine to its own Royal Navy. Australia's first Aukus submarine – based on the UK design but to be built in South Australia – will be in the water 'in the early 2040s'. Aukus is forecast to cost Australia up to $368bn to the mid-2050s. Australia is providing significant subsidies to the industrial bases of both the US and UK. It has already paid $A798m – the first instalment of $A4.7bn pledged – to the US. It will pay A$4.6bn to the UK. But the deal's feasibility has come under significant pressure regarding both nuclear-capable senior partners In the US, there are consistent concerns that America's sclerotic ship-building industry is incapable of building enough submarines for its own defences. Legally, the US can only sell the boats if the commander-in-chief – whoever is then US president – certifies that America relinquishing a submarine will not diminish its own undersea capability. The US navy already has a shortfall of submarines, expected to worsen over coming years, and shipyards in America are running up to three years late in building new Virginia-class submarines, a 2024 US navy report found. Colby, who is leading the US Aukus review, has repeatedly said he is 'very sceptical' about the pact and its benefits for the US. He told the US Senate armed service committee that the US was not building enough submarines for its own defence, and would not sell submarines to Australia if that might jeopardise American interests. 'We don't want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position and more vulnerable… because [the attack submarines] are not in the right place at the right time.' The UK parliament announced its own inquiry into Aukus in April, which will examine whether 'geopolitical shifts since the initial agreement in 2021' have rendered the agreement unworkable In January, the UK government's own major projects agency described the UK's plan to build the nuclear reactor cores needed to power Australia's Aukus submarines as 'unachievable'.
