Biden has yet to speak with some longtime congressional allies post cancer diagnosis
Twenty-four hours after the Sunday announcement that former President Joe Biden has an aggressive form of prostate cancer, one of his staunchest supporters, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, said Monday he had yet to connect with him. Another close Hill ally, Sen. Chris Coons, had not spoken with his fellow Delawarean as of midafternoon Tuesday.
Biden's longtime friend Bob Brady, the former House member from Pennsylvania who has known Biden for decades, said as of Tuesday afternoon that he hadn't talked with the former president directly since his cancer diagnosis, though he did touch base Monday with his family. All three said they planned to speak with him soon.
Before his cancer diagnosis, Biden had been taking the train from Delaware to Washington, meeting with his post-presidential staff, allies and former Cabinet secretaries, according to a Biden aide granted anonymity to speak freely. In New York City for his appearance on 'The View,' he met with former President Bill Clinton. And last week he met with Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a rising star in the party.
But Biden, an inveterate creature of Washington who for most of his career seemed to gain life from glad-handing and working a room, hasn't yet talked to some longtime allies on Capitol Hill in the wake of his diagnosis. Months removed from his presidency, Biden has receded as a fixture of official Washington and has instead become a focal point of his party's recriminations — his planned reemergence after departing the White House running headlong into a devastating health diagnosis and an unsettled party growing increasingly anxious in the wilderness.
Some Democrats said they are drafting notes or plan to speak with him. Coons said he was working on finding a time to connect with Biden. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware said she has reached out to people 'very close' to the family 'and just shared my love, my prayers.' Politicians on both sides of the aisle wished him well.
Most Democrats are trying, yet again, to pivot from Biden's health to stay on message as the GOP advances President Donald Trump's domestic agenda.
Rep. Gabe Amo of Rhode Island, the only former Biden White House aide who now serves in Congress, faulted Biden's critics for capitalizing on what he called the 'politics of the moment.'
'It's in their interest to talk about this rather than the issues of the day, so we're stuck in that unfortunate reality,' Amo said. 'I hope that people are focused on one, a legacy of public service, and two, wishing him well in his recovery.'
Or as Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas, a Biden reelection co-chair, put it, 'We are living through a historic, terrifying backsliding of our democracy … I am so profoundly uninterested in talking about this issue.'
Not everyone wants to change the subject. Some Democrats, perhaps feeling burned by how Biden's decline was kept out of public view, are asking pointed questions about his cancer diagnosis — both publicly and privately.
On Monday, Ezekiel Emanuel, the oncologist and Biden's former pandemic adviser, opened the door on MSNBC's Biden-friendly 'Morning Joe' to a round of questions about Biden's health when he said that Biden 'did not develop [cancer] in the last 100, 200 days. He had it while he was president. He probably had it at the start of his presidency in 2021.'
At best for Democrats, his remarks scanned to some observers as concern about the care the president received while in office. At worst, they fueled more accusations of a White House cover-up.
In a Monday interview, Emanuel said he could not rule out the possibility that Biden had been diagnosed earlier but that information somehow wasn't released.
'Look, I'm not his doctor,' Emanuel said. 'I can't rule out that possibility because I don't know what transpired there.'
A spokesperson for Biden said Tuesday the former president's 'last known' prostate-specific antigen cancer screening test was in 2014 and that 'prior to Friday, President Biden had never been diagnosed with prostate cancer.'
This isn't the first time Biden has faced health challenges. When he was running for vice president in 2008, Biden disclosed that he had an enlarged prostate and a biopsy but that no evidence of cancer was found. His medical records also showed he had undergone prostate-specific antigen tests, which yielded normal results.
More than a decade later, when he was campaigning for the White House in 2019, Biden revealed he had been treated for his enlarged prostate, first with medication and later with surgery. The files stated he 'never had prostate cancer.'
Trump seized on questions surrounding the timeline of diagnosis — something that had quickly become an obsession of Biden's right-wing detractors online — telling reporters he was 'surprised that it wasn't, you know, the public wasn't notified a long time ago because to get to stage 9, that's a long time.' (Biden's diagnosis is stage-four prostate cancer.) Vice President JD Vance said he blamed the 'people around' Biden.
Asked about new allegations of a conspiracy to keep Biden's illness secret, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said of Republicans advancing the idea, 'What a soulless bunch. Anybody who's spending time doing that, I'll pray for him in mass this Sunday.'
To some allies of Biden, who relied on a small and, critics said, insular circle of advisers during his presidency, even acknowledging such questions is fraught.
'This just feeds into the conspiracy theories. You have an electorate who doesn't pay attention, and this is breaking through,' said Democratic strategist Kellan White, who worked as a senior adviser to Biden's campaign in Pennsylvania in 2024. 'All a Gen Z voter who barely pays attention is hearing is, 'They weekend-at-Bernie-ed Joe Biden who now has cancer, which he probably had for 10 years.''
Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), who's long been close to the Bidens, said in a brief interview she'd sent a message to the former president through his team and 'and expressed that I was praying for him and reiterated that he's in the hearts of every Delawarean right now.'
She said she'd spoken to him last at a St. Patrick's Day event in Wilmington and 'he seemed in good spirits. He seemed healthy.'
Biden's diagnosis came just as some of the Democratic Party's brightest stars had begun to grapple with questions about ramifications of his decision to run for reelection — and the fallout for the party.
'The historians will have to sort out the politics of the whole thing,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who weathered his own cancer diagnosis, said in an interview.
He added that he had not spoken to Biden but was drafting him a note. He said, 'But at this point, there's nothing to do, but for those of us who love the guy, to express our solidarity and our sympathy.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
31 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
Republican plans to overhaul Medicaid are already shaking up the 2026 midterms
Senate Republicans have yet to finalize their version of President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy proposal, but GOP lawmakers up for reelection in 2026 are bracing for the political impact of the bill's Medicaid cuts. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is pushing for a provider relief fund. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina has warned GOP leaders about how many in his state could lose care. And Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa has picked up a crop of Democratic challengers campaigning off her 'Well, we all are going to die' response to a town hall protester. Tens of thousands of people could lose coverage in each of those three senators' states, according to a KFF analysis on the version of the bill passed by the Republican-led House last month. Beleaguered Democrats, meanwhile, hope that laser-focusing on health care will help them chip away at the Republicans' 53-seat Senate majority and take back the House. A key part of Democratic messaging has been to tie the Medicaid cuts, which would largely affect low-income Americans, to tax breaks for the wealthy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the changes would reduce federal Medicaid spending by roughly $800 billion over 10 years, largely by instituting work requirements for certain adults eligible for Medicaid and postponing a Biden administration rule intended to simplify enrolling and renewing coverage. 'It is crazy politics for them to do this,' said Brad Woodhouse, a longtime Democratic operative and executive director of Protect Our Care, a health care advocacy group that launched a $10 million campaign this year to oppose Medicaid cuts. 'Everyone is going to be unhappy with this bill, unless you're a very high net worth individual: a millionaire, a multi-millionaire, a billionaire, or a large corporation.' Many Republicans have argued that the cuts to Medicaid are meant to sustain the program for those who need it most. They're also betting that the rest of the bill will be more popular. Paul Shumaker, a longtime North Carolina GOP strategist who advises Tillis and other Republican leaders in the state, said he was 'bullish' on the midterm elections because he believes voters will support Republican arguments about rooting waste, fraud and abuse out of Medicaid. He also thinks voters will back other policies in the legislative package like cutting taxes on tips and overtime pay and raising the child tax credit. 'Democrats are basically staking themselves out on issues that resonate with one-third of the voters, whereas Republicans have staked themselves out on issues that resonate with two-thirds of the voters,' Shumaker said. 'They have put themselves into a box.' Democrats are betting that a narrow focus on the bill's health care provisions will have the most impact, even in states like Iowa, where Democrats are hoping to oust Ernst, contest an open governor's seat and two US House seats. Ernst, who is seeking a third term next year, picked up a Democratic challenger earlier this month after she told a town hall protester 'well, we all are going to die' in response to comments about cuts to Medicaid. Ernst doubled down on the remarks in a video filmed in a cemetery. An Ernst spokesperson pointed to Ernst's full comments, in which she said she wants to leave Medicaid funding for the 'most vulnerable' and 'those that are eligible.' 'While Democrats fearmonger against strengthening the integrity of Medicaid, Senator Ernst is focused on protecting Medicaid for the most vulnerable,' reads a statement from the senator's office. 'She will continue to stand up for Iowa's rural hospitals, clinics, and community health centers that serve our state.' Iowa state Rep. J.D. Scholten announced his campaign soon after Ernst's town hall, becoming the second candidate in the race after Democrat Nathan Sage, who announced in April. Some election forecasters shifted the race slightly – from solid to likely Republican — after he launched his campaign. 'We're seeing people, just everyday people calling Ernst 'Joni Hearse,'' Scholten told CNN. 'You just get that sense, politically, that if we can tap into that … this is where our foot's in the door to a lot of voters who have not been voting Democrat.' It's also motivating Democratic voters in the state. Melinda Magdalene Wings, a 65-year-old retired hospice nurse from Iowa City, Iowa, told CNN she's worried cuts to Medicaid funding would impact the assisted living home where her 86-year-old parents, including her mother who has advanced dementia, reside. In February, she started writing her representatives about the bill. 'As Iowa's elected officials, I expect them to vote for what's best for Iowa — for the people of Iowa — and not for this administration,' she said. 'Money going to millionaires doesn't make any sense.' A handful of Senate Republicans, including Tillis and Collins, have raised concerns about the impact the reconciliation bill could have on their states, particularly a Senate proposal that would limit how much states can raise provider taxes, a key source of revenue. The provider tax provision is among a handful that Senate Republicans are revising after the chamber's parliamentarian ruled they didn't meet the strict budget rules that allow the legislation to pass with a simple 51-vote majority. 'I've been very concerned about the cuts in Medicaid and the impact on my state, but other states as well,' Collins told CNN's Manu Raju on Tuesday. 'I've also been concerned about the health of rural hospitals, nursing homes, health centers and have been working on a provider relief fund. But that doesn't offset the problem with the Medicaid cuts.' Tillis said Tuesday that while the bill's Medicaid cuts are 'directionally right,' Republicans 'have to do it at a pace that states can absorb, or we're gonna have bad outcomes, political and policy.' Tensions within the Senate GOP caucus have also spilled out into the open. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell told colleagues with concerns about the bill during a private GOP conference meeting that 'failure is not an option' and people in their states raising concerns about the bill's Medicaid provisions would 'get over it,' according to a report from Punchbowl News. Democrats quickly latched onto the comments. 'I hope Republicans can 'get over it' when they lose their seats in the midterms,' DNC communications director Rosemary Boeglin said in a statement. A spokesperson for McConnell said the senator was referring to people who are 'abusing' Medicaid and 'should be working,' and the need to 'withstand Democrats' scare tactics' on the issue. 'Senator McConnell was urging his fellow members to highlight that message to our constituents and remind them that we should all be against waste, fraud, and abuse while working to protect our rural hospitals and have safety nets in place for people that need it,' the statement read. Nearly 8 million more people would be uninsured in 2034 because of the Medicaid provisions in a version of the bill passed by the House last month, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. Most of those cuts come from the legislation's work requirement, which calls for able-bodied adults without dependent children to work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month. A proposal unveiled by the Senate this month would expand that requirement to adults with children over the age of 14, which would likely result in even more people losing coverage. Republicans have argued they are reforming Medicaid to sustain the program for people who need it the most. They've focused their messaging on work requirements, which are popular with voters, and policies that would penalize states for covering undocumented immigrants with their own funds. 'President Trump and Senate Republicans are working to protect Medicaid for Americans who truly need it,' Nick Puglia, a National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson, said in a statement to CNN. 'Voters will reject Democrats' lies, fearmongering, and attempts to use taxpayer benefits to subsidize illegal aliens and their open border policies.' Republicans are also framing a vote against the reconciliation bill, which extends the individual income tax cuts in the 2017 GOP tax policy overhaul that are set to expire at the end of the year, as a vote for tax increases. 'I think in the end, this bill will play out on the Republicans saying, 'We got it done. We passed it, the economy's good. We spared you from having to pay more taxes,'' David McIntosh, the president of Club for Growth, told reporters recently. 'And then pivot to say, 'but if my Democrat opponent gets elected, they want to undo it … vote for us so that we can stop them from raising your taxes.'' A Washington Post-Ipsos poll released June 17, before the Senate released its framework, found overwhelming support for some provisions in the bill. Seventy-two percent of Americans support raising the child tax credit, 71% support extending tax cuts for individuals making less than $100,000 and 65% support eliminating taxes on tips. But, as whole, 42% of Americans oppose the bill, while 23% support it and 34% said they had no opinion. A KFF poll released the same day found that 64% of adults had an unfavorable view of the House's version of the bill. The poll found that 68% of adults – including 51% of Democrats, 66% of independents and 88% of Republicans – support work requirements, but that support for work requirements dropped to 35% when adults heard the argument that 'most people on Medicaid are already working' or unable to work. Democrats have described the work requirements as an intentional bureaucratic hurdle. Health policy experts and Democratic campaigns have also focused on the ripple effects cuts to Medicaid funding could have on the system as a whole, including rural hospitals and nursing home care. 'A lot of Medicaid patients seek care from the same providers or same types of providers,' said Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor of health policy and politics at Harvard University. 'So when you're pulling dollars out of the system and away from those providers, it doesn't just hurt the patients who no longer have insurance through Medicaid.' CNN's Manu Raju, Alison Main and Fredreka Schouten contributed to this report.
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
California closes $12B deficit by cutting back immigrants' access to health care
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants, to close a $12 billion deficit. It's the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321 billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants. AP But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday. The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole. 'It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians,' Newsom said in a statement about the budget. California also faces potential federal cuts to health care programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters in San Francisco, Calif. in June 12, 2025. JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 7 Migrant farm laborers have their temperatures in King City, Calif. on April 28, 2020. Getty Images 'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.' Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually. 7 Protesters hold up signs supporting healthcare for illegal immigrants during California's Immigrants Day of Action on May 20, 2019 in Sacramento, Calif. AP 'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending,' said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.' Here's a look at spending in key areas: Health care Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded health care program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old. The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it's a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal health care. Democratic state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted 'no' on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities. The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026. But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian.' The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood. 7 A family whose parens are illegal immigrants sign up for government assisted health care at the San Mateo Medical Center in San Mateo Calif. on Feb. 22, 2023. AP Environment Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending. Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. 7 The California State Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. on Aug. 5, 2024. AP The budget doesn't make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year. Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently. Public safety The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment. Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads. Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that's not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program. 7 A protester holds an American and Mexican flag outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles during a rally on June 6, 2025. AP Other priorities Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030. The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense. But cities and counties won't see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds. The budget also doesn't act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.
