‘It's time for Joe Biden to go away': Democrats are triggered by Biden's return to the spotlight

Joe Biden's return to the spotlight this week is igniting anger among Democrats who wish the former president would ride off into retirement and stay there.
In a wide-ranging interview on 'The View' with former First Lady Jill Biden on Thursday, Biden owned up to his role in Donald Trump's return to power even as he defended his decision to stay in the race as long as he did last year. But if he was expecting a warm reception, he's not getting it. Many in his party are desperate to turn the page on Biden's presidency, craving new leaders and fresh faces as Democrats look to find a way out of the political wilderness.
'It's time for Joe Biden to go away with all due respect and let the next generation of Democrats take the mantle,' said Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha. 'Every time he appears on a show or says something, it's just another week or a month that we have to defend him and remind everybody that we got beat by Donald Trump, again.'
'For those of us trying to rebuild the brand, it does no good when you're constantly reminded about the old brand that won't go away,' Rocha said, adding that the only good thing about the interview is that it was quickly overtaken by news of the selection of a new pope.
Biden's reemergence comes as the Democratic Party works to move beyond its current predicament — shut out of power in Washington and embroiled in a fierce debate about the party's direction and strategy against Trump.
However unwelcome for many Democrats, Biden is an unavoidable subject.
The former president's allies are bracing for the potential release of audio of Biden's interview with Robert Hur, the special counsel who investigated Biden's handling of classified documents and raised questions about his mental acuity. That's in addition to an upcoming book by two high-profile journalists that promises to shed light on Biden's decision to run for reelection 'despite evidence of his serious decline' mentally, according to promotional copy for Original Sin, set for release on May 20.
For many Democrats, both events are dredging up past problems— not just around Biden's age, but also inflation and the party's handling of cultural issues.
'Every interview that Biden does drags us backwards and reminds people of the older generation of Democrats that got us into this mess — when attention is our scarcest resource, we need to prioritize hearing from the next generation of leaders who could excite and rebuild the party,' said Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run For Something, a progressive group that helps young people run for office.
Some Democrats saw value in Biden's reemergence, even if they said he needed to be more thoughtful about how to present his message.
'I think this is an incredible inflection point as a nation, as a world and people like Joe Biden add value to the conversation — when [he's focused] on being constructive,' said Democratic strategist Ashley Etienne, who served as a senior advisor to Biden, as well as to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
'I do believe we've got to reconcile what actually happened, be honest about it, confront it and move past it. I think central to that … would be an autopsy from the party,' Ettiene added. 'Absent that, then you got all these books that are going to fill in the gaps and the holes and it's going to keep perpetuating the problem and deepening the wound.'
A Biden adviser granted anonymity to speak freely said he had no immediate public events in the coming weeks.
At least some Democrats would welcome hearing more from him. Noting that Biden is the only person to ever beat Trump, Erica Loewe, who served as special assistant to Biden during his presidency, said that as the party tries to rebuild following its November losses, 'there's no reason why Joe Biden should not be a part of this conversation.'
'There's no question that Democrats as a whole have a messaging problem,' she said, 'but that can't solely be blamed on Joe Biden.'
Biden said in his interview that he's working on his own book and offered his own assessment of Kamala Harris' loss to Trump, saying Republicans took 'the sexist route' But he acknowledged his contribution to Trump's victory, saying, 'Look, I was in charge and he won, so I take responsibility.'
Some Democrats appreciated his willingness to say that publicly.
'I think people have wanted to hear him acknowledge some sense of responsibility,' said longtime Democratic strategist Karen Finney, who worked on HIllary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. She also said many Democrats were more upset that Biden, who had cast himself as a transitional figure, ran for reelection anyway.
That, she said, 'goes back to his initial promise, where he said that he would only serve for one term.'
Relitigating the most painful parts of the Biden presidency has been especially frustrating for Democrats who see the party finally showing signs of life. Democrats got their preferred candidate elected statewide in a Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April, and Trump's handling of the economy — which had once been a strength — is quickly becoming a liability.
And though Democrats' chances of retaking the Senate are slim as they face a deeply unfavorable map, the picture is looking brighter for them than it once did, with popular Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia passing on a Senate bid against Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff and former Republican Gov. Chris Sununu forgoing a run for an open Senate seat in New Hampshire.
For some Democrats, Biden's return only pulled attention away from that string of good news for the party.
'Most Democrats … are tired of the distractions,' said Georgia-based Democratic strategist Andrew Heaton. 'The last thing we want is anything that's going to feed it to the naysayers who are going to point to see: 'once again, it was a big cover up in the party.''
Heaton likened Democrats' current situation to a wildfire. At some point, he said, it will be important to understand how it started. But for now, he said, 'Digging into the machinations of the Biden reelect is not something that I think a lot of folks are focused on right now.'
He said, 'Like, can we just move on?'
Adam Wren, Elena Schneider and Liz Crampton contributed to this report.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

30 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Senate's Byrd Rule Upends Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) listens during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC, on June 10, 2025. Credit - Kayla Bartkowski—Getty Images She wasn't elected and she doesn't cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump's legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors, MacDonough in recent days has significantly shrunk the size of the President's sweeping tax-and-spending package known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions considered 'extraneous' to the federal budget in the kind of legislation Republicans are trying to craft. One of the main GOP provisions the parliamentarian said did not satisfy the Byrd Rule was a measure to push some of the costs of federal food aid onto states, sending Republicans back to the drawing board to find the billions in savings that provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to bar non-citizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more difficult to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. MacDonough could issue additional guidance this week. The spate of rulings from the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump's tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress. Republicans have been scrambling for months to secure enough votes for Trump's megabill, which centers on extending his 2017 tax cuts and delivering on several of his campaign promises, such as boosting border security spending and eliminating taxes on tips. Support for the package has softened this month as more Republicans warn that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit without further spending cuts. But the parliamentarian's latest rulings will force Republicans to either strip those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to keep them in, a nearly impossible hurdle given that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that some of the provisions have little business in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make big changes to how the federal government spends money but, under Senate rules, isn't allowed to substantively change policy. MacDonough's rulings came about after days of behind-the-scenes meetings between her office and Senate staff. They illustrate the often-overlooked power of Senate procedure—and the person tasked with interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington's ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats. Now, the parliamentarian's rulings may force Republicans back to the drawing board just as they were hoping to finalize their legislative centerpiece. Here's what to know about the rejected measures. The Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, is a procedural constraint named after the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia to prohibit 'extraneous' provisions from being tacked onto reconciliation bills, which are fast-tracked budget packages that allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The rule makes it so that every line of a reconciliation package must have a direct and substantive impact on federal spending or revenues. Provisions that serve primarily policy goals—rather than budgetary ones—are subject to elimination by a parliamentary maneuver known as a point of order. Whether a point of order is sustained is ultimately made by the parliamentarian, who is essentially the Senate's umpire tasked with providing nonpartisan advice and ensuring that lawmakers are complying with the Senate's rules. Parliamentarians often face backlash during the budget reconciliation process, when they determine whether policy proposals comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule. MacDonough's rulings have invalidated a number of headline-grabbing GOP provisions, including a plan requiring states to pay a portion of food benefits—the largest spending cut for SNAP in the bill. The SNAP measure, which the parliamentarian said violated the Byrd Rule, would have required all states to pay a percentage of SNAP benefit costs, with their share increasing if they reported a higher rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. Some lawmakers warned their states would not be able to make up the difference on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government, and could force many to lose access to SNAP benefits. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that he's looking for other ways to cut food assistance without violating Senate rules. Another rejected provision would have zeroed out $6.4 billion in funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, effectively shuttering the agency. The bureau was created by Democrats as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the financial crisis as a way to protect Americans from financial fraud. Republicans have long decried the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said the GOP plan would have left Americans vulnerable to predatory lenders and corporate fraud. The Senate parliamentarian also blocked a GOP provision intended to limit courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt by requiring plaintiffs to post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary injunctions or imposing temporary restraining orders against the federal government. Democrats hailed that decision by the parliamentarian, noting that it would have severely undermined the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach. Senate Democrats 'successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. MacDonough also nixed provisions to reduce pay for certain Federal Reserve staff, slash $293 million from the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Research, and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is tasked with overseeing audits of publicly traded companies. Each of these proposals, she ruled, either lacked sufficient budgetary impact or were primarily aimed at changing policy, not federal revenues or outlays. MacDonough also rejected language in the bill drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would have exempted certain infrastructure projects from judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The rejected proposal would have allowed companies to pay a fee in exchange for expedited permitting, a move Republicans argued would streamline bureaucratic delays. Also disqualified was a measure to repeal the Biden Administration's tailpipe emissions rule for cars and trucks manufactured after 2027. MacDonough ruled that the environmental provisions were either insufficiently tied to federal spending or failed to meet the Byrd Rule's strict thresholds for inclusion. The parliamentarian's decisions could, in theory, be overturned. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has the authority to ignore her ruling by calling for a floor vote to establish a new precedent—essentially overruling the Senate's referee. Parliamentarians have been ignored in the past, though it is quite rare. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored the parliamentarian's advice as the Senate debated filibuster rules. MacDonough has been overruled twice before: in 2013, when Democrats eliminated filibusters to approve presidential nominees, and in 2017, when Republicans expanded the filibuster ban to include Supreme Court nominations. But Thune has signaled he has no intention of going down that path this time. 'We're not going there,' the Senate Majority Leader said on June 2 when asked by reporters about overruling MacDonough. Thune could also fire the Senate Parliamentarian and replace her with one willing to interpret the rules more in line with how Senate Republicans view them. Write to Nik Popli at

Newsweek

34 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Senate Bill Would Protect Thousands of Migrants From Deportation

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senate Democrats introduced new legislation to protect hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have had their legal status revoked by the Trump administration. The so-called Safe Environment from Countries Under Repression and Emergency (SECURE) Act would offer "long-term stability" for those under Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) programs, if it is able to pass in a Republican-controlled Congress. Why It Matters The Trump administration has argued that TPS was abused by the Biden administration, allowing thousands of immigrants from countries including Venezuela, Afghanistan and Haiti to remain in the U.S. for longer than necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the White House to end some of these protections. The U.S. Capitol Building at dusk on June 21, 2025, in Washington. The U.S. Capitol Building at dusk on June 21, 2025, in To Know Democratic Senators Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada were among the 30 lawmakers backing the legislation that would open the pathway to permanent residency for those who received TPS. According to a press release from the group, TPS and DED holders in the U.S. for five years or longer would be eligible to apply for a green card, along with their spouse, domestic partner and children, as long as they met certain requirements. The bill would also make TPS applicants eligible for work and allow them to apply for travel outside the U.S. while their application is pending. TPS is usually granted for a period of 18 months, and it is up to the Secretary of Homeland Security to discontinue protections or extend them, which has been done for a number of countries for several years, including during the first Trump administration. Current Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has moved to end protections for those from Venezuela, Haiti, Cameroon, Afghanistan and Nepal since January. Under the Democrat-backed bill, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to notify Congress and justify why status was being revoked. Currently, about a half-million immigrants who were allowed to legally remain in the U.S. on TPS face the chance of deportation, some to countries still experiencing conditions that led to protections being introduced in the first place. Noem has argued that those situations have eased and that it is time for immigrants to return to their home countries. What People Are Saying Senator Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, in a press release: "America has long used the TPS and DED programs to offer special legal protections to individuals in the United States whose lives would be put at extreme risk if forced to return to their countries of origin. As they've sought safety and stability here, TPS and DED recipients have built new lives in America, living here legally for years—sometimes decades—and making important contributions to our communities. "But the Trump Administration is threatening both the lives they have built and the safety of these individuals—forcing TPS recipients to return to dangerous places like Haiti, Venezuela, Afghanistan, and more. This bill offers much-needed certainty to TPS and DED recipients – providing a path to stay safely in the U.S. and continue to call America their home." Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO president, in a press release: "Immigrant workers are under unprecedented attack: hundreds of thousands of people have been stripped of their legal status and work authorization, throwing families and industries into chaos and uncertainty. "Workers with Temporary Protected Status, many of whom have lived and worked in our country for decades, are vital members of our communities and our unions. The SECURE Act is common-sense legislation that would provide TPS holders with stable, permanent lawful status so they can continue to raise their families, work, and contribute to our economy." What Happens Next While 30 senators back the bill, it is not clear whether it will pass the chamber or be backed in the House, which is also controlled by Republicans.

The Hill

35 minutes ago

• The Hill

Parliamentarian rules against Senate effort to force Postal Service to sell off EVs

The Senate parliamentarian says Republicans cannot include a measure that would force the sale of electric vehicles (EVs) used by the U.S. Postal Service in their 'big, beautiful bill.' The sweeping GOP budget and policy bill included a provision that would have required the General Service Administration, which handles the equipment used by government agencies, to sell all electric vehicles owned by the Postal Service. But Democrats announced on Sunday that the parliamentarian, a nonpartisan arbiter of the upper chamber's rules, found that this provision did not pass muster. 'There is no better way to define this Big Beautiful Betrayal of a bill than families lose, and billionaires win,' Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a written statement alongside the announcement. 'The Byrd Rule is enshrined in law for a reason, and Democrats are making sure it is enforced.' The Republican bill seeking to advance much of President Trump's agenda is going through a special process known as 'budget reconciliation' that allows it to avoid the Senate's typical 60-vote threshold and pass legislation with a simple majority — avoiding the need for any Democrat votes in order to pass the bill. However, to qualify for reconciliation, the policies that are included in the bill need to comply with the 'Byrd Rule' which prevents 'extraneous' measures from being included in this type of legislation.