No Regrets
That's how Senate Democrats described special counsel Robert Hur's February 2024 report on President Joe Biden, in which Hur described Biden as 'a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.'
More than a year later, the Hur report—in which the prosecutor explained why he opted not to charge Biden with classified records violations—has come back into focus with the release of the new book Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. The Dispatch's Michael Warren and Steve Hayes noted earlier this week that the release of the book and audio recordings of the Hur-Biden interviews is a vindication of Hur. Original Sin is 'an authoritative, detailed, and devastating account of one of the most consequential scandals in modern American history,' Hayes wrote, and a section on Hur is 'the most powerful part of the book.'
Hur's description of Biden was not only accurate—as Biden's devastating performance at the June 2024 presidential debate with Donald Trump and subsequent decision to drop out of the race would reveal. It marked the last potential opportunity for Democrats to push out the president with time for a new candidate to run a real campaign. But rather than take that difficult but wiser path in February 2024, congressional Democrats circled the wagons around Biden.
In the Capitol this week, The Dispatch asked a number of Senate Democrats if they had any regrets about how they reacted to Hur's report or thought they owed him an apology. None did.
'It is outrageous the way [Robert Hur] disrespected and maligned the president,' Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota said in February 2024. 'What he said about the president not remembering the death of his beloved son [Beau] is just so despicable.' Hur reported that Biden was unable to recall the date of Beau Biden's death by 'several' years, and audio of the Hur-Biden interview confirmed the president said that Beau, who died in 2015, had 'either been deployed or is dying' in the 2017-18 timeframe.
Given all that we know now, does Smith regret her comments? 'At the time, I had been around the president, and in the times I had been around him, he appeared to be functioning well and was on top of it, so that's what I thought at the time,' Smith told The Dispatch in the Capitol this week. Does she think Hur deserves an apology? 'That's just the way it rolls,' Smith replied.
Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine said in February 2024 that Hur was a 'grandstander not a prosecutor,' adding that he expected Biden would be 'very vigorously engaged' when the campaign heated up. In the Capitol this week, Kaine told The Dispatch: 'I had one interaction with Joe Biden in the last 18 months, and it was the State of the Union. And he was fantastic.' He said he didn't owe Hur an apology because he had included information 'extraneous to his report.'
As Hur explained at the time, he needed to include in his report his rationale for why he declined to prosecute Biden on the documents charges—and his rationale relied heavily on his belief a jury would not convict a man with Biden's apparent memory problems. Former Obama administration official Tommy Vietor posted on X earlier this week that the book Original Sin caused him to reevaluate his February 2024 attack on Hur. 'I found the context about the Hur report to be some of the most interesting/revelatory information in ORIGINAL SIN,' Vietor posted on X. 'At the time, Hur's comments about Biden being an 'elderly man with a poor memory' seemed like Jim Comey-style inappropriate editorializing about a non-charging decision. However, the book made me realize how important that context was for Hur in explaining his decision NOT to charge Biden, and I now feel that many of the attacks on Hur, including by me, weren't totally fair.'
But there was no such public rethinking of attacks on Hur among congressional Democrats this week. 'When a prosecutor decides against bringing charges, generally, there's no public announcement,' Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told The Dispatch. Blumenthal called Hur's comments 'gratuitous and unnecessary' back in February 2024.
'Whether [Hur is] telling the truth or not, there are things prosecutors don't get to say,' Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told The Dispatch this week. 'I think it was out of line.'
Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, who said last year that Hur chose to 'politically slime' Biden, declined to take a question from The Dispatch as he rushed to a vote.
Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania said in February 2024 of Hur's report: 'It was just a smear and cheap shots and just taking things out of context, or even just inventing.' In the Capitol this week Fetterman, who has had questions raised about his own mental status following an in-depth report in New York magazine, did not directly address his criticism of Hur when asked about it.
'I don't know why we're still talking about Biden,' Fetterman told The Dispatch, adding: 'Honestly, I never thought the race was winnable anyway.'
Asked about the Hur report this week, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut simply told The Dispatch: 'I didn't pay much attention to that report when it came out.' But he and others probably should have been paying attention. The Hur report came on the heels of Biden declining to sit for an softball interview before the Super Bowl—a traditional stop that is functionally a multi-million dollar campaign ad that reaches exactly the type of voter who doesn't pay much attention to politics. Days before the Hur report, Biden had confused French president Emmanuel Macron for President Francois Mitterrand, who died in 1996. The very same week, he confused recent German Chancellor Angela Merkel for Helmut Kohl, who was chancellor in the 1990s.
Any one of these things in isolation might have been written off as nothing serious, but adding this public evidence together should have been setting off alarm bells—before the Hur report came out. Congressional Democrats could have responded to the report by demanding that Biden immediately release audio of his interview with Hur and immediately prove himself in public interviews. Instead, they chose to shoot the messenger.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With the national party in crisis, CT Democrats can't agree on whether it's time for change
With Democrats struggling nationally over their future direction, the party in Connecticut is facing some similar questions of ideological and generational lines as younger liberals challenge the 'Old Guard' that has held office for years. The generational shift includes a challenge by state Rep. Josh Elliott, 40, against Gov. Ned Lamont, 71, with liberals saying that Lamont has not been progressive enough on the taxation of the wealthy and disagree with his recent vetoes of key bills on affordable housing and awarding unemployment compensation for workers on strike for more than 14 days. Lamont supporters counter that the latest polling by Morning Consult shows Lamont among the most popular governors in the country with an approval rate of 63% and a disapproval rating of 29%. In another race, former Hartford mayor Luke Bronin, 46, is seriously considering challenging longtime U.S. Rep. John B. Larson, who turns 77 on July 22. Larson has won 14 consecutive elections, but has suffered two public episodes in which he temporarily 'froze' in the middle of speeches. In a nationally televised speech in February on C-SPAN, Larson suffered a 'complex partial seizure' on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as he was making remarks. Larson underwent tests and said later that he had previously had a heart valve replacement years earlier. He suffered a second incident in April during a press conference at the Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford, where he paused again during an answer before recovering and soon after having his picture taken with other attendees. Liberal Democrats are angry at CT's governor and no longer hiding it. 'There will be a challenger' Danbury Mayor Roberto Alves, who was installed as the new state Democratic chairman earlier this year after being endorsed by Lamont, is managing the wide-ranging ideologies and is not trying to deter anyone from forcing a primary. Instead, he follows the mantra of Lamont, who welcomed Elliott to the race. 'We're the big tent party,' Alves told The Courant in an interview. 'Personally, I think we need to be the bigger tent party. With the divisiveness in Washington, D.C., they all have a strategy on what they think they can do better. In Connecticut, it's tough because people see what's going on nationally and they want the Democrats to do more. I look at everything we've done already — we hold every office. We have super majorities in our state Senate and our state House for the first time since 2008. That's because Democrats have been delivering and our message has been resonating with people.' Concerning primaries, Alves added, 'This is democracy. This is a right that people have, and we won't get in the way of democracy. What the governor said is 'Welcome to the race.'' At the same time, younger Democrats are looking for leadership roles while others have held office for decades and have reached higher ages. Besides Larson, U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro is 82 years old, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal is 79, U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney is 72, and Lamont is 71. 'Are younger folks upset with what they're seeing elsewhere and it's maybe permeating into some local stuff? Perhaps,' Alves said. 'Look, I'm a 41-year-old mayor in Danbury and the first Democratic mayor in 22 years. I'm much younger than my opponent that we beat to get here and actually my opponent now.' On the national level, Democrats have been frustrated as they try to find their way in the ongoing battle against President Donald Trump, who has consolidated power with Republicans controlling the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Deputy House Speaker pro tempore Bob Godfrey of Danbury said that the national leaders, such as Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York, need to do more. He said they missed their chance when President Joe Biden was in the White House and the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress in 2021 and 2022. 'Where's the Democratic platform? I don't see any,' Godfrey said in an interview. 'So far, your platform has one plank, and it's 'We're not Trump.' Not enough. We lost working-class voters. What are you doing to get them back? Crickets.' Kevin Rennie: The smarts of this CT candidate are what people are talking about Noting that he was an elector for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016, Godfrey said the party needs to get back on its feet after Trump defeated former Vice President Kamala Harris of California. 'Concentrating on marginal issues instead of working class family issues has hurt the party nationally,' Godfrey said. 'Happily, we've retained the working class vote here in Connecticut, and we've worked at it.' Democrats differ sharply over the lessons learned from the stunning primary victory of Zohran Mamdani for New York City mayor over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and others. Mamdani came out of nowhere after Cuomo led by wide margins in the early polls based largely on his name recognition as the former governor. Liberals and young Democrats have been highly energized by Mamdani's victory, and he is now facing Cuomo and current mayor Eric Adams in the general election in November. Liberals said the win showed that the 33-year-old Democratic socialist could take out the 67-year-old former governor from the Old Guard. But others say there are no widespread lessons to be learned from Mamdani. 'That's such a New York City parochial thing,' said Godfrey, who graduated from Fordham University in The Bronx. 'It doesn't translate into Westchester County or Long Island, for crying out loud. Or northern New Jersey. … I have no qualms about saying New York City's issues and voting don't translate outside of the city.' Alves agreed, saying that New York is 'unique' with its own issues and problems. 'The lesson we can learn is that relentless campaigning, engaging younger voters, talking to people about kitchen-table issues are important,' Alves said. 'Grassroots campaigns still work. It's not about money and the last name. It's about engaging your voters and talking about things that are on their mind. That's what wins elections.' State Republican chairman Ben Proto agreed with Democratic counterparts, saying, 'I think New York City is reflective of New York City. Ultimately, I don't think it's reflective of Connecticut as a whole or upstate New York or Long Island in that regard. New York City is kind of an entity unto itself.' For frustrated Connecticut Democrats, Alves is encouraging activists to help the national push to recapture the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. 'If what is going on in Washington is really bothering you, we need to flip four Congressional seats,' Alves said, referring to the House. 'Let's ensure that our Democratic delegation wins here, but then let's help with resources to other folks. Let's find those four Congressional seats and support them by making calls, donating, knocking doors, being a part of their campaigns as well and finding things that we can do. … Be part of the solution. Be part of that strategy, that fight and that team that can help change these things in two years and four years.' Asked by The Courant about the turmoil in the Democratic Party nationally, Lamont responded, 'I think the Democrats know where they stand. I don't know where the Republicans stand. I don't think there's a Republican in this building or down in Washington who would have voted for that budget-busting deficit bill that Trump put forward say 10, 15 years ago. This time around, they all saluted. Not one of them has the right to ever use the words fiscal conservative again.' Lamont added, 'I'm surprised there is no unrest amongst the Republicans. They voted for a budget they would have said no — hell no — to just 10 years ago. I have no idea where they stand now. I don't think they do, either.' One of the defining issues in the governor's race is that liberals oppose Lamont's stance on blocking any tax increases on the state's wealthiest residents beyond the current highest rate of 6.99%. Democrats have called for a surcharge on capital gains, which generate huge amounts of money for the wealthiest investors. Lamont, a Greenwich multimillionaire who funds his owns campaigns, has opposed tax increases for the past seven years as the state has rolled up large budget surpluses. 'For some people, a tax increase is a first resort,' Lamont told reporters recently. 'For me, it's an absolute last resort. We don't need it. We've done well. We're growing the economy. People are moving into the state.' Elliott, 40, represents the other end of the spectrum, saying that the middle class pays too much of a percentage of their income in a variety of taxes, including sales and property. Beyond taxes, Elliott has other concerns. 'I was astonished and horrified that our governor went to D.C. for Trump's inauguration after he had already seen the kind of president that Trump was,' Elliott said. But Lamont, who held fundraisers at his Greenwich home for the Democratic campaigns of both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, said earlier this year that he went to Trump's inauguration out of respect for the office of the presidency. Lamont spent part of the time chatting with fellow governors and did not attend the inaugural balls or participate in the Republican celebrations during a trip that lasted less than 24 hours in Washington, D.C. Proto said, 'If Elliott thinks being the Mamdani of Connecticut is the way to win, then he's living in a fantasyland.' Going forward, Lamont will be working with the legislature in a special session as early as September to plug holes in the federal government's support for Connecticut on issues like Medicaid and food stamps. Top legislators have repeatedly said they do not know how much money will be cut, but the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that Connecticut could lose as much as $13 billion over 10 years. Godfrey said the governor needs to work closely with the General Assembly during the special session and during the next regular session that starts in February 2026. 'The governor made a big mistake in vetoing the housing bill and vetoing the striking workers bill,' said Godfrey, a liberal Democrat. 'In Connecticut, it's not ideology. The governor just needs to improve his relations with the General Assembly and actually collaborate with us. We'll see how that goes.' While many liberals are backing Elliott, the House moderate caucus is strongly backing Lamont, even after the two vetoes. Overall, 18 House Democrats, including moderates from more upscale communities like Greenwich, Glastonbury and Simsbury, voted against the housing bill, which was crafted by Democratic leaders to address the state's affordable housing crisis. 'With the recent vetoes, Governor Lamont demonstrated the thoughtful, steady leadership Connecticut needs,' the moderates wrote in a statement. 'As proud moderate Democrats, we believe we reflect the views of the majority of Connecticut residents — and we're proud to stand with a governor who does the same.' Concerning various Democratic primaries for Congress and governor, Proto said, 'For years, it's always been said the Republican Party was a dysfunctional party. It looks like the Democrats are taking on that mantle in 2026. It will be fun to watch what they're going to do to each other.' Longtime Democratic strategist Matthew Hennessey of Hartford said Lamont's only threat is in the primary because he believes that Lamont could defeat any Republican in the field, including Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich and Mayor Erin Stewart of New Britain. 'Ned has left the door open on the left side of the party,' Hennessey said. 'That's his only threat. His threat is not in the general election, even though Republicans like to say that. It's just never going to happen. … I don't think Josh can beat him, but there is going to be a lot of people who are going to use Josh's campaign as the vehicle to tell Ned that these things that he's been doing are not where the Democratic Party is today.' With liberals and moderates often at odds on key issues, the state party chairman is the one who plays the role of keeping the party together. 'What Democrats have to understand is Democratic messages don't have to be uniform all the time,' Alves said. 'Everybody has a seat at our table because nobody has the market cornered on good ideas. We might not always agree with each other, but as long as we disagree respectfully and come out with policies that can work. Not everybody is always going to be happy. At the end of the day, it's the Democratic values and the Democratic principles that are important to keep our progress and keep our state moving forward.' Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump just made it harder to close the Education Department
Trump has said he wants to close the Education Department, but he just gave the agency a long to-do list WASHINGTON – When President Donald Trump signed a megabill with his spending and policy priorities into law on July 4, he distanced himself from another one of his goals: dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. Congressional Democrats have already tried to stand in the way of that effort – sometimes literally. So have the federal courts, which continue to debate the legality of the president's attempts to weaken the agency, whose work impacts students and schools across the country. But there's one obstacle that's less evident: the so-called "One Big, Beautiful Bill Act." Starting next year, the law will create two brand-new federal student loan repayment plans. It also expands Pell Grants, a staple of college financial aid, to include weekslong post-high school training programs. And it binds colleges to a fresh set of rules meant to protect students and save taxpayers money. Under the law, there's one person ultimately responsible for carrying out those directives: Education Secretary Linda McMahon. Her entire department will be required to mobilize its depleting resources to execute the wishes of Congress and the president. That dynamic puts Trump in an awkward position. In February, he said he wanted McMahon to "put herself out of a job." (In order to legally do that, he'd need the support of Senate Democrats, which he doesn't have.) But by signing his signature spending law, Trump gave McMahon a laundry list of important things to do. And those asks won't be simple or easy to turn into a reality, experts and former Education Department employees have said, without the right people to make them work. Trump has already cut the agency's workforce in half this year, and the Supreme Court on July 14 allowed more than 1,000 workers to stay fired while their layoffs are challenged in court. "I do have significant concerns that the speed of the cuts will have left us with a department that is unable to effectively implement this legislation," Beth Akers, a senior fellow at the right-leaning think tank the American Enterprise Institute, told USA TODAY during a recent webinar. Those worries were echoed by Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education, the country's main higher education association. "You can definitely anticipate a lot of problems," he said. College financial aid administrators are warning of "significant disruption" for students who rely on help to pay for school. Read more: How FAFSA 'fixes' have turned College Decision Day into chaos In spite of that unease, top officials at the Education Department have stressed that the agency is well-positioned to enact the law. On July 18, the agency published some guidance for implementation, and more information would be provided "in the weeks and months ahead," said Jeffrey Andrade, a top agency official. "Just within President Trump's first six months, the Department has responsibly managed and streamlined key federal student aid features," deputy press secretary Ellen Keast said in a statement to USA TODAY. "We will continue to deliver meaningful and on time results while implementing the President's OBBB ('One Big Beautiful Bill') to better serve students, families, and administrators.' New student loan repayment plans, Pell Grant expansion For anyone who takes out new federal student loans after July 1, 2026, the law eliminates all current repayment programs and replaces them with only two: a standard plan and a plan based on borrowers' incomes. The more than 40 million Americans who already have federal student loan debt will still have access to some old repayment plans. But the 8 million borrowers enrolled in President Joe Biden's signature repayment plan will have to be switched to a different one by 2028. All of that work will be carried out by the Federal Student Aid office, a branch of the Education Department. The "One Big, Beautiful Bill Act" also creates a special type of Pell Grant. It will be made available to students enrolled in short-term programs between eight and 15 weeks long in fields like cosmetology and welding. The Education Department has to start vetting and allowing schools to receive that money by July 2026. Different college oversight rules Trump's new legislation additionally tasks the Education Department with enforcing a framework for holding colleges and universities accountable for getting students well-paying jobs after graduation. Republicans call the measure a "do no harm" test. Put simply, it takes away the ability of some college programs to let students take out federal loans if those schools aren't providing a good return on investment. To fully implement the program, staffers at the Education Department have a lot of number-crunching to do. They'll likely need data from colleges, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and states, Fansmith said. All of that information will need to be aggregated and calculated across tens of thousands of programs, and thousands of schools, over a yearslong period. Robert Jason Cottrell, who was a data coordinator in the Office of Postsecondary Education before he was laid off in March, said he fears the Education Department may rely too heavily on contractors to get it all done. "I don't know if that's going to work," he said. Echoes of FAFSA challenges It's not the first time in recent years that the Education Department has been tasked with implementing big changes for students. The last time, it didn't go very well. In December 2020, Congress passed a law to simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, a form that most students must fill out each year to get financial aid. But the rollout went haywire, jeopardizing the college dreams of millions. There were many reasons the agency bungled the law's implementation. Some federal officials blamed outside contractors, who were doing the bulk of the work because the Education Department was short-staffed. Other critics said former President Joe Biden spent too much time prioritizing student loan forgiveness. Read more: How did the FAFSA rollout go so wrong? A look at the key events Regardless of the cause, the effects were devastating: Some students decided to delay college or forgo it altogether. Parents made important decisions without enough information. And universities lost trust in the federal financial aid system. Things turned around, though. After Biden's Education Department brought in a special team to focus on the FAFSA, the form got better. Now, it's easier than ever to fill out. In many college financial aid offices, the wounds from the FAFSA crisis are still fresh. And since the Education Department layoffs, schools have struggled to get in touch with the government for routine requests. Those issues are already affecting their ability to help students. Read more: Colleges report widespread problems with financial aid since Education Department layoffs In a statement on July 14, Melanie Storey, the president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, emphasized that students and schools need more clarity about what comes next. "With significantly more work on the horizon to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, we reiterate our concerns that the Trump administration has not shared the details of a plan to redistribute the Department's work in a way that does not cause significant disruption for America's college students," she said. Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
White House history: Did you know a president started National Ice Cream Day?
White House ice cream history is more than a tale of dessert – it's a reflection of American ingenuity. Picture this: a swelteringly unbearable Washington, DC summer. Now imagine stepping into the White House, where a cool scoop of ice cream awaits. For centuries, this frozen delight has been a staple in the Executive Mansion, charming presidents, first ladies, and guests alike. From Thomas Jefferson to Donald Trump, ice cream has dripped deeply into the fabric of the White House and presidential history, proving that even the most powerful people in the world can't resist a good scoop. Though ice cream's origins trace back to the second century B.C., it's as American as apple pie. Today, we devour an average of 4 gallons per person each year. In the White House, it's a treat that transcends politics and brings a touch of joy to formal state dinners and intimate garden parties alike. And that's not to mention first families or visiting grandchildren! Ice cream is a great White House tradition The story of ice cream in the White House begins with Thomas Jefferson, a man whose affinity for the frozen dessert began during his time in France. In 1806, Jefferson served ice cream at a White House Independence Day celebration, delighting guests with its cold, creamy texture – a rarity in the days before home refrigerators. Jefferson, whose menus sometimes even featured the treat served inside a warm pastry, had an icehouse built on the White House grounds to make sure ice cream was never in short supply. Dolley Madison also embraced the dessert with enthusiasm, serving it frequently during her time as first lady from 1809 to 1817. While she wasn't the first, she helped solidify ice cream's place as a White House tradition. Decades later, at Abraham Lincoln's second inauguration ball in 1865, flavors ran the gamut as guests enjoyed an elegant buffet that included vanilla, lemon, white coffee, chocolate, burnt almonds, and maraschino ice creams alongside other desserts. The crowd left little behind, proving that ice cream could take the cake even amid national turmoil. Opinion: White House hospitality is a form of diplomacy that has evolved over time By the 20th century, ice cream was a White House summer staple, as evidenced by a charming moment in 1924 when President Calvin Coolidge and first lady Grace Coolidge enjoyed scoops at a garden party for veterans. The image of the famously reserved Coolidge indulging in ice cream humanized a president known for his stoicism. President Reagan proclaimed July as National Ice Cream Month The establishment of the White House executive pastry chef position in 1979 marked a new era of creativity for frozen desserts. Roland Mesnier, who held the role from 1979 to 2004, often used sorbet – an ice cream-like dessert traditionally made with sugar, fruit juice or puree and water instead of dairy – in his elaborate final courses. For a 1984 state dinner honoring President Miguel de la Madrid of Mexico, Mesnier formed kiwi sorbet into cactus shapes filled with tequila-flavored mousse and adorned with pulled-sugar flowers and spines. A decade later, chef Mesnier went the full 'cream' route in his dessert at a 1995 state dinner honoring German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, serving coffee and hazelnut ice cream. Opinion: White House state dinners put America on display. They're crucial for US diplomacy. President Ronald Reagan, known for his love of jelly beans, also had a soft spot for ice cream. In 1984, he proclaimed July as National Ice Cream Month and the third Sunday of the month as National Ice Cream Day – a 'sundae' celebration. Barack Obama brought a scooper's perspective to the ice cream narrative. As a teenager in Honolulu, he worked at a Baskin-Robbins. In a 2016 LinkedIn post, the president reflected on the job's lessons in responsibility and hard work, though admitting the endless free scoops somewhat but not completely dulled his taste for the treat. There was no shortage of ice cream devotees at the White House, though. At a 2010 visit to an ice cream factory in Columbus, Ohio, the then-vice president proclaimed, 'My name is Joe Biden, and I love ice cream. You all think I'm kidding – I'm not. I eat more ice cream than three other people … all at once.' Donald Trump's ice cream preference made headlines in 2017. As TIME magazine reported after a small Blue Room dinner for reporters during this first term, President Trump was served two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate cream pie, while his guests received just one. Whether intentional or not, the president's double scoop added a modern twist to the mansion's ice cream lore. White House ice cream history is more than a tale of dessert – it's a reflection of American tastes, ingenuity, and the human need for a little sweetness amid the pressures of leadership. During this National Ice Cream Month, the White House Historical Association will offer our own selection of ice cream delectables daily outside The People's House, our new education center across from the White House Grounds. Stop by and have a scoop with us! Stewart D. McLaurin is president of the White House Historical Association, a private nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded by first lady Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961, and is director of The People's House: A White House Experience multimedia educational center and museum.
