WASHINGTON: At 1:45 p.m. Sunday, President Joe Biden’s senior staff was notified that he was stepping away from the 2024 race. At 1:46 p.m., that message was made public.
It was never Biden’s intention to leave the race: Up until he decided to step aside Sunday, he was all in.
His campaign was planning fundraisers and events and setting up travel over the next few weeks. But even as Biden was publicly dug in and insisting he was staying in the race, he was quietly reflecting on the disaster of the past few weeks, on the past three years of his presidency and on the scope of his half-century career in politics.
In the end, it was the president’s decision alone, and he made it quietly, from his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, sick with COVID-19, the first lady with him as he talked it through with a small circle of people who have been with him for decades.
“This has got to be one of the hardest decisions he’s ever made,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, the president’s closest ally in Congress, who spoke with him Sunday. “I know he wanted to fight and keep going and show that he could beat Donald Trump again, but as he heard more and more input, I think he was wrestling with what would be the best for the country,” Coons said in an interview with the Associated Press.
This story is based on interviews with more than a dozen people familiar with the president’s thinking over the past few weeks, days and hours as he made his decision. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to talk about private discussions.
Deciding to leave the race
It wasn’t until Saturday evening that Biden began to come to the conclusion that he would not run for reelection. He started writing a letter to the American people.
Biden had been off the campaign trail for a few days, isolated because of COVID-19, when it all started to deeply sink in — his worsening chances of being able to defeat Donald Trump with so much of his party in open rebellion, seeking to push him out of the race — not to mention the persistent voter concerns about his age that were only exacerbated by the catastrophic debate.
Biden was at his beach home with some of his and Jill Biden’s closest aides: chief strategist Mike Donilon, counselor to the president Steve Ricchetti, White House deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini, and Anthony Bernal, senior adviser to the first lady.
By Sunday, his decision crystallized. He spoke multiple times with Vice President Kamala Harris, whom he would endorse. He informed White House chief of staff Jeff Zients, and his longtime aide and campaign chairwoman Jen O’Malley Dillon.
A small group of senior advisers from both the campaign and the White House were assembled for the 1:45 p.m. call to relay Biden’s decision, while his campaign staff released the social media announcement one minute later.
“It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term,” Biden wrote.
Just about a half-hour later came his public vote of support for Harris. It was a carefully choreographed strategy meant to give the president’s initial statement full weight, and to put a period on the moment before launching forward into the next step.
“Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year,” Biden said in another post on X. “Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump.”
Elizabeth Alexander, Jill Biden’s communications director, said, “down to the last hours of the decision only he could make, she was supportive of whatever road he chose.
“She’s his biggest believer, champion, and always on his side, in that trusted way only a spouse of almost 50 years can be,” Alexander said.
About the debate
It’s not like things had been going great before the June 27 debate. In an August 2023 poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, fully 77 percent of US adults said Biden was too old to be effective for four more years. Not only did 89 percent of Republicans say that, but so did 69 percent of Democrats.
And it hadn’t gotten any better by April, when more than half of US adults thought Biden’s presidency hurt the country on issues like the cost of living and immigration.
But Biden had insisted — to himself, to the nation, to his supporters — that he would be able to bring voters around if he got out there, told people about his record, explained it to them. Talked to them. Looked them in the eye.
He had a lifetime of experience that told him that if he stuck to it, he’d overcome. His campaign was so confident, in fact, that they arranged to go around the Commission on Presidential Debates to set up a series of faceoffs with Trump under a new set of rules.
That produced the June 27 debate that set Biden’s downfall in motion. Biden gave nonsensical answers, trailed off mid-sentence and appeared to stare blankly in front of an audience of 51 million people. Perhaps most distressing to other Democrats, Biden didn’t go after Trump’s myriad falsehoods about his involvement in the violence around the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, abortion rights or immigration.
Biden and his team blamed the night on so many different things. He had a cold. He was jet-lagged. He needed to get more sleep. That night opened the door for his party to push him out.
A slow acceptance
Publicly and privately Biden was fighting to stay in the race. He was working to convince voters that he was up for the task for another four years. He was frustrated by the Democrats coming out publicly against him, but even angrier about the leaks and anonymous sources relaying how even former President Barack Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were working to get him to drop out.
It looked like he’d won out a couple times; the chorus of naysayers seemed to die down. He had some well-received speeches mixed with so-so TV interviews and a day featuring an extended news conference in which he displayed a nuanced grasp of policy but also committed a few gasp-inducing gaffes.
But the doubts didn’t go away.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer eventually invited top Biden staff to a meeting on July 11 to talk about their concerns. It didn’t go well. Senators expressed their concerns, and almost none of them said they had confidence in the president. But even afterwards, Schumer was worried it wasn’t getting to Biden.
Following the meeting, Schumer called Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Obama. Schumer decided that day to request a meeting with Biden.
At a July 13 meeting in Rehoboth, Schumer told Biden he was there out of love and affection. And he delivered a personal appeal focused on Biden’s legacy, the country’s future and the impact the top of the ticket could have on congressional races — and how that could potentially affect the Supreme Court. That same day came the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
Schumer told the president he didn’t expect him to make an immediate decision, but he hoped Biden would think about what he said, according to a person familiar with the conversation.
Biden responded, “I need another week,” and the two men hugged.
Sunday's decision
It was full steam ahead until Biden pulled the emergency brake.
The president had lost his voice, but he was recovering well and his doctor had sent an update to the public shortly before 1 p.m. on his condition. His small circle decided to post the statement on X on Sunday, rather than let it leak out for days before he was prepared to address the nation, which he is expected to do sometime early this week.
Much of his campaign was blindsided, and it was clear by how little had changed after he dropped out. For hours after the announcement, Biden’s campaign website reflected that he was still running and KamalaHarris.com still redirected to Biden’s page.
Even Harris’ statement announcing her intent to succeed Biden was sent from “Joe Biden for President.”
After the public announcement, Zients held a senior staff call, and sent out an email, and spoke with members of Biden’s Cabinet, emphasizing to them that nothing had changed when it came to the business of governing and that the administration still had a lot of work to do, according to two people with knowledge of the message. And the president was also making personal calls.
“Team — I wanted to make sure you saw the attached letter from the President,” Zients wrote in the staff email. “I could not be more proud to work for President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the American people — alongside all of you, the best White House team in history. There’s so much more to do — and as President Biden says, ‘there is nothing America can’t do — when we do it together.’”
Vermont Sen. Peter Welch, a Democrat who had called for Biden to bow out, was gardening with his wife when the news broke, and said he was momentarily “stunned.” Senators texted each other questioning if it was really happening.
Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal was at an event in his state, and there was spontaneous applause when it was announced to the crowd that Biden wouldn’t run, he said.
There was a sense of excitement and energy in the crowd “that has been completely lacking,” Blumenthal said.
“It was also, let’s be blunt, a sense of relief,” he said. “And a sense of reverence for Joe Biden.”
By Sunday evening, Biden for President had formally changed to Harris for President.
O’Malley Dillon told campaign staff their jobs were safe, because the operation was shifting to a campaign for Harris.
Biden’s decision to drop out crystallized Sunday. His staff knew one minute before the public did
https://arab.news/2a886
Biden’s decision to drop out crystallized Sunday. His staff knew one minute before the public did
- It wasn’t until Saturday evening that Biden began to come to the conclusion that he would not run for reelection
- By Sunday evening, Biden for President had formally changed to Harris for President.
Croatia issues Serbia travel warning after saying nationals expelled
Foreign Minister Gordan Grlic Radman on Wednesday said he would send a protest note to Serbia
ZAGREB: Croatia on Thursday recommended its nationals postpone non-essential travel to Serbia, alleging Belgrade had expelled five Croatian women citing security reasons.
The Croatian foreign ministry alleged “inappropriate and unfounded actions of Serbian authorities toward Croatian nationals,” in a statement.
Other Croatians had previously been accused of taking part in a recent wave of protests against Serbia’s nationalist government in an separate case.
Foreign Minister Gordan Grlic Radman on Wednesday said he would send a protest note to Serbia over the “detention of five Croatian women” there who all returned home safely.
He said the five attended a workshop involving NGOs organized by Austria’s Erste Bank foundation and were “detained without any explanation.”
He said Zagreb will inform the European Union delegation in Belgrade about Serbian authorities’ actions, “which put Croatian citizens in a humiliating position.”
Serbia’s foreign ministry said it was “inappropriate” for a Croatian official to “accuse Serbia of endangering the freedom of movement and speech of several Croatian nationals.”
The latter were “treated in Belgrade by the competent state bodies in line with legal procedures and usual international practice,” it said in a statement without elaborating.
Serbia’s interior ministry did not reply to AFP’s request for comment.
Ana Kovacic, an art historian from Zagreb who took part in the two-day workshop, told the newspaper Jutarnji list that it was attended by around 15 people from Bosnia, Croatia, North Macedonia, Romania and Slovenia.
After it ended, the participants were taken from their hotel to a police station where they were interrogated, she said.
They were given a document to sign saying that they were “threatening the security of the Republic of Serbia,” should leave the country within 24 hours and were banned from entering it for a year.
Croatian and Serbian human rights groups condemned the actions of the Serbian police, who they said “arrested and deported several persons” from those countries, describing those arrested as “activists.”
Two workshop participants from Albania also told local media in their country that they suffered the same treatment.
The Albanian foreign ministry said on Thursday it had summoned the Serbian ambassador over the case.
It “expressed regret and serious concerns regarding the detention” of the two, describing them as “representatives of civil society who participated in a seminar in Belgrade.”
Serbia has been rocked by regular protests since a deadly disaster at a train station in November ignited longstanding anger over corruption.
High-ranking Serbian government officials, without providing evidence, have claimed in their statements that the student blockades and protests are “influenced by Western intelligence agencies” with the aim of “overthrowing President Aleksandar Vucic.”
At the end of December, tabloid media close to the Serbian authorities accused a group of Croatian students of participating in the protests.
Ties between two former Yugoslav republics remain frosty since Croatia’s 1990s war of independence against Belgrade-backed rebel Serbs.
Croatia on Thursday recommended its nationals postpone non-essential travel to Serbia, alleging Belgrade had expelled five Croatian women citing security reasons. (AFP/File)
A federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship
- US District Judge John Coughenour repeatedly interrupted a Justice Department lawyer during arguments to ask how he could consider the order constitutional
- The case is one of five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants rights groups across the country
SEATTLE: A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order ending the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” during the first hearing in a multi-state effort challenging the order.
US District Judge John Coughenour repeatedly interrupted a Justice Department lawyer during arguments to ask how he could consider the order constitutional. When the attorney, Brett Shumate, said he’d like a chance to explain it in a full briefing, Coughenour told him the hearing was his chance.
The temporary restraining order sought by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington was the first to get a hearing before a judge and applies nationally.
The case is one of five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants rights groups across the country. The suits include personal testimonies from attorneys general who are US citizens by birthright, and names pregnant women who are afraid their children won’t become US citizens.
Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, began the hearing by grilling the administration’s attorneys, saying the order “boggles the mind.”
“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour told Shumate. Coughenour said he’s been on the bench for more than four decades, and he couldn’t remember seeing another case where the action challenged was so clearly unconstitutional.
Shumate said he respectfully disagreed and asked the judge for an opportunity to have a full briefing on the merits of the case, rather than have a 14-day restraining order issued blocking its implementation.
Trump’s executive order, which he signed on Inauguration Day, is slated to take effect on Feb. 19. It could impact hundreds of thousands of people born in the country, according to one of the lawsuits. In 2022, there were about 255,000 births of citizen children to mothers living in the country illegally and about 153,000 births to two such parents, according to the four-state suit filed in Seattle.
The Trump administration argued in papers filed Wednesday that the states don’t have grounds to bring a suit against the order and that no damage has yet been done, so temporary relief isn’t called for. The administration’s attorneys also clarified that the executive order only applies to people born after Feb. 19, when it’s set to take effect.
The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees citizenship for people born and naturalized in the US, and states have been interpreting the amendment that way for a century.
Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, the amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Trump’s order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and orders federal agencies to not recognize citizenship for children who don’t have at least one parent who is a citizen .
A key case involving birthright citizenship unfolded in 1898. The Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a US citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he faced being denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that case clearly applied to children born to parents who were both legal immigrants. They say it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents living in the country illegally.
Trump’s order prompted attorneys general to share their personal connections to birthright citizenship. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, for instance, a US citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.
“There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own,” Tong said this week.
One of the lawsuits aimed at blocking the executive order includes the case of a pregnant woman, identified as “Carmen,” who is not a citizen but has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent residency status.
“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit says. “It denies them the full membership in US society to which they are entitled.”
Spain says over 550 migrants reached its Canary Islands in 2 days
- The Spanish archipelago off northwest Africa is continuing to experience large numbers of migrant arrivals as more people mainly from West Africa
- In the first half of January, 3,409 migrants reached Spain by sea
MADRID: More than 550 migrants have arrived in Spain’s Canary Islands in boats over the past two days, Spain’s maritime rescue service said Thursday. At least one body was found in one of the boats.
The Spanish archipelago off northwest Africa is continuing to experience large numbers of migrant arrivals as more people mainly from West Africa attempt the dangerous Atlantic crossing in ramshackle boats.
In the first half of January, 3,409 migrants reached Spain by sea, the vast majority to the Canaries, Interior Ministry figures showed. About as many migrants came illegally during the same period last year.
In 2024, Spain received a record number of migrants who crossed illegally via sea, with more than 61,000 people having arrived on boats. Nearly 47,000 of those landed in the Canary Islands. They included several thousand unaccompanied minors.
The islands are roughly 65 miles (105 kilometers) from the closest point in Africa, but to avoid security forces, many migrants attempt longer journeys that can take days or weeks. The majority last year departed from Mauritania, which is at least 473 miles (762 kilometers) from the closest Canary Island, El Hierro.
Earlier this month, the Spanish migration rights group Caminando Fronteras (Walking Borders) said that 50 people had died in the capsizing of a boat on its way to the Canary Islands. It reported that 44 of them were from Pakistan.
The European Union’s border agency, Frontex, said irregular crossings into the bloc in 2024 fell 38 percent overall but rose by 18 percent on the Atlantic route between West Africa and the Canary Islands. It attributed the rise in part to more migrants leaving from Mauritania, which has become a primary point of departure for people attempting to reach Europe.
The International Organization for Migration recorded at least 5,000 migrants who died or went missing on the migratory route since it began keeping records in 2014. But Caminando Fronteras (Walking Borders) says the real death toll is significantly higher, and that over 10,000 people died or went missing while attempting the route last year alone.
Caminando Fronteras says it compiles its own figures from families of migrants and rescue statistics.
ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women
- ICC judges will consider Khan’s application before deciding whether to issue warrants, a process that could take weeks or even months
- After coming to power in 2021, Taliban quickly imposed restrictions on women and girls that United Nations has called “gender apartheid“
THE HAGUE: The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor on Thursday said he was seeking arrest warrants against senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan over the persecution of women, a crime against humanity.
Karim Khan said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and chief justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani “bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds.”
Khan said that Afghan women and girls, as well as the LGBTQ community, were facing “an unprecedented, unconscionable and ongoing persecution by the Taliban.
“Our action signals that the status quo for women and girls in Afghanistan is not acceptable,” added Khan.
ICC judges will now consider Khan’s application before deciding whether to issue the warrants — a process that could take weeks or even months.
The court, based in The Hague, was set up to rule on the world’s worst crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It has no police force of its own and relies on its 125 member states to carry out its warrants — with mixed results.
In theory this means that anyone subject to an ICC arrest warrant cannot travel to a member state for fear of being detained.
Khan warned he would soon be seeking additional applications for other Taliban officials.
Akhundzada inherited the Taliban leadership in May 2016 after a US drone strike in Pakistan killed his predecessor.
Believed to be in his 60s or 70s, the reclusive supreme leader rules by decree from the Taliban movement’s birthplace in southern Kandahar.
Haqqani was a close associate of Taliban founder Mullah Omar and served as a negotiator during discussions with US representatives in 2020.
ICC prosecutor Khan argued the Taliban was “brutally” repressing resistance through crimes “including murder, imprisonment, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, and other inhumane acts.”
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a statement the prosecutor’s actions should put the Taliban’s exclusion of women and girls from public life back on the international agenda.
“This is an important moment for Afghan women and girls who have been waiting much too long for justice,” HRW’s women’s rights deputy director, Heather Barr, told AFP, calling for “other efforts to hold the Taliban fully accountable.”
The move was praised by Afghan women activists, including Shukria Barakzai, an Afghan former lawmaker and the ousted government’s ex-ambassador to Norway.
“It’s a victory,” she told AFP from London.
“This also could be counted as (an) important achievement for feminism globally... and particularly for women in Afghanistan.”
The UN special rapporteur for human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, called the move “a crucial step... for accountability in Afghanistan” on X.
After sweeping back to power in August 2021, the Taliban authorities pledged a softer rule than their first rein from 1996-2001. But they quickly imposed restrictions on women and girls that the United Nations has labelled “gender apartheid.”
Edicts in line with their interpretation of Islamic law have squeezed women and girls from public life.
They have barred girls from secondary school and women from university, making Afghanistan the only country in the world to impose such bans.
Taliban authorities imposed restrictions on women working for non-governmental groups and other employment, with thousands of women losing government jobs — or being paid to stay at home.
Beauty salons have been closed and women blocked from visiting public parks, gyms and baths as well as traveling long distances without a male chaperone.
A “vice and virtue” law announced last summer ordered women not to sing or recite poetry in public and for their voices and bodies to be “concealed” outside the home.
The few remaining women TV presenters wear tight headscarves and face masks in line with a 2022 diktat by Akhundzada that women cover everything but their eyes and hands in public.
The international community has condemned the restrictions, which remain a key sticking point in the Taliban authorities’ pursuit of official recognition, which it has not received from any state.
The Taliban authorities have dismissed international criticism of their policies, saying all citizens’ rights are provided for under Islamic law.
UK court hears horrific details of Southport girls’ murders as killer removed from dock
- After Judge Julian Goose refused to adjourn the sentencing, Rudakubana shouted “don’t continue,” prompting the judge to have him removed
- Someone shouted “coward” as he left
LONDON: A British teenager who murdered three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event was obsessed with violence and genocide, prosecutors said on Thursday after the killer was removed for repeatedly interrupting his sentencing.
Axel Rudakubana, 18, killed the three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed summer vacation event last July, with two of them suffering “horrific injuries which ... are difficult to explain as anything other than sadistic in nature,” prosecutor Deanna Heer said.
Rudakubana was removed from the dock at Liverpool Crown Court shortly after the start of his sentencing after shouting from the dock that he was unwell and suffering chest pains.
After Judge Julian Goose refused to adjourn the sentencing, Rudakubana shouted “don’t continue,” prompting the judge to have him removed. Someone shouted “coward” as he left.
On Monday, Rudakubana admitted carrying out the killings, in the northern English town of Southport, an atrocity that was followed by days of nationwide rioting.
He murdered Bebe King, 6, Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, 9, with two of the girls suffering at least 85 and 122 sharp force injuries, Heer said.
The prosecutor described a scene of horror, with the court shown video footage of screaming young girls fleeing the building. One bloodied girl was seen collapsing outside, provoking gasps and sobs from the public gallery.
He has also pleaded guilty to 10 charges of attempted murder relating to the attack, as well as to producing the deadly poison ricin and possessing an Al-Qaeda training manual.
Before Rudakubana’s outburst, Heer had said he was not inspired by any political or religious ideology.
“His only purpose was to kill and he targeted the youngest, most vulnerable in order to spread the greatest level of fear and outrage, which he succeeded in doing.” she said.
“Whilst under arrest at the police station after the incident, Axel Rudakubana was heard to say ‘It’s a good thing those children are dead ... I’m so glad ... so happy’.”
Heer said images and documents found on a computer at his home showed “he had a long-standing obsession with violence, killing and genocide.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said there were “grave questions” for the state to answer as to why the murders took place.
The government has announced a public inquiry into the case after it said Rudakubana had been referred three times to Prevent, a counter-radicalization scheme, but no action had been taken.
Starmer has said the attack could show that Britain faces a new type of terrorism threat waged by “loners, misfits, young men in their bedrooms” committing extreme violence.
