CBS just fumbled a hard-hitting "60 Minutes" segment on El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison, only for it to slip through the cracks and air in Canada, Just The News reported.
This eyebrow-raising saga involves a delayed report on allegations of brutal treatment of migrants deported to El Salvador, a controversial editorial decision, and an accidental broadcast across the northern border.
The "60 Minutes" piece, spearheaded by reporter Sharyn Alfonsi, dug into claims of horrific abuse at CECOT, El Salvador’s maximum-security facility.
Interviews in the segment revealed chilling accounts of deported migrants enduring months of physical and sexual torment at the hands of prison authorities.
Notably, the El Salvador government has stayed mum on these serious accusations, offering no defense or explanation for the alleged conditions.
With such a gut-wrenching story, one might expect swift airing—but CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss hit the pause button at the last minute.
Weiss initially greenlit the segment last Thursday, gave her nod on Friday, but then pulled back on Saturday, citing a need for more balance in the reporting.
Her specific demand? On-camera statements from the Trump administration, rather than relying on a note that the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment.
As Alfonsi reported in the piece, the Department of Homeland Security “declined our request for an interview and referred all questions about CECOT to El Salvador.”
Now, let’s unpack that—shouldn’t a network trust its reporters to convey a refusal to comment, especially when it’s a government agency dodging accountability?
Other CBS and "60 Minutes" staff pushed back against Weiss’s hesitation, insisting the segment had already been rigorously vetted and was ready for primetime.
Alfonsi herself didn’t hold back, accusing Weiss of stalling for “political” reasons rather than legitimate editorial concerns, a charge that raises questions about whether policy debates are muzzling tough journalism.
While the segment was supposed to be reworked for a Monday airing based on the Friday-approved version, a glitch in the system led to an unexpected twist.
Due to a streaming mix-up, the original cut inadvertently aired in Canada on Global TV, which holds rights to "60 Minutes" in that market, leaving CBS red-faced over what CNN termed an “inadvertent” broadcast.
Neither the network nor "60 Minutes" has issued a statement on this accidental release, leaving viewers and critics alike to wonder how such a sensitive story slipped through the editorial net.
Hollywood’s underbelly just got messier with a resurfaced feud between Steven Spielberg and Ben Affleck that’s more dramatic than a blockbuster flop.
A decades-old pool party mishap involving Spielberg’s young son and Affleck, coupled with professional disagreements, reportedly led the legendary director to refuse collaboration on a film project in the early 2000s, the New York Post reported.
Back in the early 2000s, Binder was crafting “Man About Town,” a film partly inspired by a real home invasion at Spielberg’s residence, when the iconic director showed interest in helming the project.
Spielberg, eager to team up, reportedly told Binder, “We gotta do something together.”
That enthusiasm faded quicker than a bad script’s box office run when Ben Affleck, then a rising star, signed on to lead the cast.
Binder recalled sealing the deal with Affleck, a handshake agreement to star in the film, only to face Spielberg’s abrupt veto soon after.
Spielberg’s refusal wasn’t just about box office disasters like “Gigli,” the infamous 2003 flop with Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, or the media storm around Affleck’s romance at the time.
The deeper issue stemmed from a personal grudge tied to a family vacation incident where Affleck, dating Spielberg’s goddaughter Gwyneth Paltrow back then, clashed with Spielberg’s young son at a pool.
According to Binder’s account of Spielberg’s story, the child playfully pushed a fully dressed Affleck into the water, but Affleck’s reaction—picking up the boy, tossing him back in, and leaving him in tears—left a lasting mark.
Spielberg didn’t hold back, reportedly telling Binder, “I just don’t like to work with him.”
He further cited Affleck’s recent cinematic failures and personal drama as reasons to avoid collaboration, painting a picture of a man he saw as both a professional risk and personally distant.
Hollywood’s elite squabbling over a kiddie pool spat might seem trivial, but it underscores how even titans cling to family loyalties over progressive ideals of endless forgiveness—something many everyday Americans can appreciate.
When Binder broke the news to Affleck that the project was off, the actor immediately suspected the pool incident, asking if Spielberg had mentioned the story of throwing his kid in the water.
In the end, Binder took the director’s chair himself for “Man About Town,” which skipped theaters and went straight to DVD, a quiet end to a noisy feud.
This saga proves personal clashes can sink promising ventures in Tinseltown, where egos often outweigh common sense, reminding us that even in Hollywood, family grudges can trump the push for woke reconciliation.
Is the Smithsonian Institution teetering on the edge of losing federal support over a cultural showdown?
The Hill reported that the Trump administration has issued a stark warning to the iconic museum system, threatening to cut funding unless it fully complies with a content review meant to promote a unified vision of American history.
In August, the White House initiated a thorough evaluation of eight Smithsonian museums to ensure their exhibits reflect President Trump’s executive order, focused on national pride and the elimination of partisan narratives.
This policy, dubbed Executive Order 14253, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” aims to reinforce trust in cultural institutions by prioritizing a positive national story.
On Thursday, a pointed letter from Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley and White House budget director Russell Vought was sent to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch, blasting the museum’s inadequate response to prior demands.
“Fell far short of what was requested, and the overwhelming majority of requested items remain outstanding,” wrote Haley and Vought, clearly frustrated with the lack of progress.
The Thursday correspondence didn’t mince words: federal funding for the Smithsonian depends on compliance with the executive order and meeting the review’s requirements.
Originally, materials were due by mid-September, but the deadline was extended due to staffing transitions at the museum—yet, as of Thursday, little had been submitted since late September.
Could this delay signal a quiet resistance to a policy that challenges the often progressive tilt of cultural narratives, or is it just red tape at its finest?
By Friday, Secretary Bunch responded with a letter affirming that the Smithsonian is “committed to sharing information and data,” though he blamed delays on a government shutdown.
He urged the White House to recognize the complexity of the task, noting it requires coordination across numerous staff and departments.
Ever conciliatory, Bunch proposed a meeting with administration officials to discuss the museum’s internal content review efforts, perhaps aiming to defuse rising tensions.
In a Friday evening email to staff, Bunch noted that additional documents were slated for submission that day, while staunchly defending the museum’s control over its exhibits and programming.
One can’t help but ponder if this sluggish pace stems from logistical hurdles or a subtle stand against what some might view as governmental overreach into curatorial decisions.
Either way, with federal dollars hanging in the balance, the Smithsonian finds itself at a crossroads between cultural autonomy and political expectations in a debate over how America’s story should be told.
Brace yourselves, patriots—President Trump’s bold White House ballroom project is steaming ahead despite legal roadblocks from preservationist critics.
A federal judge recently showed little interest in stopping the $300 million plan, even as a lawsuit aims to stall construction for further scrutiny, The Hill reported.
The drama began when the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed their lawsuit on Friday, claiming the administration dodged critical consultations with federal oversight panels.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, signaled he’s unlikely to grant a temporary restraining order.
He noted the preservationists couldn’t prove immediate, severe harm to justify freezing the project in its tracks.
Still, Judge Leon warned the government against rushing into irreversible underground changes that could lock in the above-ground design.
“If it does, then the court will address it—I can assure you of that,” Judge Leon declared, putting the administration on notice about historic integrity.
That’s a sharp reminder to Trump’s team: bulldozing ahead without proper process could mean tearing it all down later.
The administration insists below-ground work won’t start until January, with above-ground efforts delayed until April, giving a small window for legal debates.
Judge Leon ordered the government to submit detailed construction plans to federal review bodies by the end of December, enforcing some accountability.
He also slated a deeper hearing for early January to weigh the preservationists’ push for a broader injunction.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, argues national security necessitates moving forward, pointing to Secret Service safety needs and an emergency bunker beneath the ballroom site.
DOJ lawyer Adam Gustafson asserted, “It’s the president’s prerogative to make of the White House what he wishes,” underscoring executive control over the residence.
While that resonates with conservative values of strong leadership, bypassing established reviews risks tarnishing even a well-intentioned project for the American people.
The 90,000-square-foot ballroom, set for state dinners and galas with a $300 million cost mostly from private donors, has already seen the East Wing demolished and aims for a 2028 finish, though preservationists demand congressional approval and public input before more shovels hit dirt.
Buckle up, folks—Friday’s massive document drop from the Department of Justice has unveiled a Pandora’s box of Jeffrey Epstein files that are raising eyebrows across the political spectrum.
This latest release, mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, includes thousands of documents and hundreds of photos tied to the sex trafficking investigations of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, with former President Bill Clinton front and center in several striking images, Fox News reported.
Let’s start with the timing: the Department of Justice chose a late Friday to unleash this trove, a classic move to bury news when folks are winding down for the weekend.
Among the photos, we’ve got Clinton, shirtless and relaxed, lounging in a dimly lit hot tub with his arms casually folded behind his head—hardly the image of presidential decorum.
Another shot captures him wading in a pool alongside Maxwell and an unidentified woman whose face has been redacted, leaving us to wonder about the context the DOJ isn’t sharing.
Then there’s Clinton, all smiles, arm-in-arm with Epstein himself at what looks like a lively dinner party, sporting a festive shirt as if no storm clouds loomed on the horizon.
Other images show Clinton rubbing elbows with pop icons Michael Jackson and Diana Ross, a reminder of the star-studded circles Epstein moved in.
Yet another photo places him on a plane next to a woman wearing an American flag pin, her identity obscured by redactions, adding more mystery to an already murky narrative.
Unfortunately, the DOJ provided no details on where these photos were snapped, leaving the public to piece together a puzzle with half the pieces missing.
Beyond Clinton, the files feature over a dozen politically notable figures, though their presence doesn’t automatically signal wrongdoing—a fair point to keep perspective.
The release also includes glimpses into Epstein’s world, with shots of his properties’ interiors and exteriors, personal photos with various individuals, and heavily redacted exhibits related to potential victims.
While the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump, demanded this disclosure 30 days after its passage, some files remain withheld to protect ongoing probes and victims’ privacy—a necessary balance, though it fuels suspicion.
White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson didn’t mince words, stating, “Here is Bill Clinton in a hot tub next to someone whose identity has been redacted.”
She added, “Per the Epstein Files Transparency Act, DOJ was specifically instructed only to redact the faces of victims and/or minors. Time for the media to start asking real questions.” Her point is sharp—why the secrecy if there’s nothing to hide? Let’s hope journalists take up the challenge instead of chasing the next trendy outrage.
Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Angel Ureña, pushed back hard, insisting, “The White House hasn’t been hiding these files for months only to dump them late on a Friday to protect Bill Clinton. This is about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever.” His defense sounds like a deflection; if it’s not about Clinton, then who is it about? The public deserves clarity, not spin, and this late-week drop only deepens the skepticism many conservatives feel about entrenched elites dodging accountability.
Picture this: a congressional campaign in California stumbles into a digital blunder so glaring it’s almost a caricature of today’s hyper-sensitive political landscape. Esther Kim Varet, a Democratic hopeful in California’s 40th District, found her campaign website under fire for a photo mix-up that has raised eyebrows and sparked sharp criticism. It’s a small error with big implications in a race already simmering with tension.
In a nutshell, Varet’s campaign mistakenly posted a photo of a different Black woman while touting an endorsement from U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Texas Democrat, only to scramble for a fix when the error was exposed, as Fox News reports.
This isn’t just a typo or a misplaced comma; it’s a visual misstep that plays into broader debates about authenticity and attention to detail in politics. Varet, who owns Various Small Fires, an art gallery chain spanning Los Angeles, Dallas, and Seoul, is challenging Republican Rep. Young Kim in a district covering parts of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. One might think an art curator would have an eye for the right image, but this slip suggests otherwise.
The erroneous photo was yanked from Varet’s website on Thursday afternoon after Fox News Digital pointed out the mistake. It’s a quick correction, sure, but not before the gaffe caught the attention of political watchdogs eager to pounce on any misstep. In an era where every pixel is scrutinized, this kind of oversight is a gift to opponents.
Christian Martinez, national Hispanic press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), didn’t hold back on X, formerly Twitter, slamming Varet’s campaign with pointed criticism. “Racist. Arrogant. Totally out of touch,” Martinez posted, adding that Varet’s “hate-filled, bigoted self isn’t getting anywhere near Congress.” While the rhetoric is heated, it underscores how quickly a simple error can be weaponized in today’s polarized climate.
Let’s be fair -- mistakes happen, and a photo swap doesn’t inherently signal malice. But in a campaign already marred by Varet’s past social media jab at Rep. Kim as an “ESL puppet” during a critique of Trump-era immigration policies, this latest flub only adds fuel to accusations of insensitivity. It’s a pattern that’s hard to ignore, even if one grants the benefit of the doubt.
Varet, the child of Korean immigrants, has previously drawn ire for her pointed attacks on Rep. Kim, who was also born in South Korea. The NRCC labeled Varet “unhinged” back in August after her remarks on Kim’s English skills and an alleged challenge to Martinez to “prove” his Latino credentials. These incidents paint a picture of a candidate struggling to navigate the cultural tightrope of modern campaigning.
Rep. Young Kim, for her part, has responded with dignity to the personal critiques lobbed her way. “My story is not unique. It’s the story of so many Korean Americans and immigrants across the country who are proud Americans and are making our communities better every day,” Kim told Fox News Digital.
“I’m proud of my accent and will keep using my voice to protect the American dream for future generations,” she continued. Her words are a quiet rebuke to Varet’s barbs, emphasizing resilience over resentment -- a stance that resonates with those tired of divisive rhetoric. It’s a contrast that voters might well remember.
Meanwhile, the political landscape in California’s 40th District is shifting underfoot, with recently redrawn lines aimed at tilting more seats toward Democrats. This redistricting, a response to voter-approved measures and a counter to Texas’s Republican-leaning map adjustments, sets the stage for a heated contest. Varet’s missteps could undermine any advantage her party hoped to gain.
Rep. Kim isn’t just facing Varet; she’s also contending with a primary challenge from fellow Republican Rep. Ken Calvert. It’s a double-front battle for the incumbent, who must balance defending her record against intra-party competition while fending off Democratic attacks. The photo fiasco might be a minor distraction, but it’s a reminder of how optics matter in tight races.
Critics of progressive campaigns might see Varet’s error as emblematic of a broader carelessness with identity politics -- a rush to check boxes without checking facts. While it’s unfair to paint an entire ideology with one campaign’s mistake, the incident does highlight the pitfalls of prioritizing image over substance. Conservatives could argue it’s a cautionary tale against the woke obsession with representation at the expense of competence.
Still, let’s not overblow the situation -- Varet’s team corrected the error swiftly once it was flagged. But in the lightning-fast world of digital media, even a few hours of a wrong photo can cement a narrative. Campaigns must be meticulous, especially when endorsements are meant to build trust across diverse communities.
What’s the takeaway for voters in California’s 40th? This race, already charged with cultural and political undercurrents, shows how even small errors can amplify existing tensions. It’s a reminder to look beyond surface-level gaffes and focus on the policies and character of those vying for power.
In the end, Varet’s photo blunder is a stumble, not a fall -- but it’s a stumble in a race where every step counts. Rep. Kim’s steady response and the district’s evolving dynamics ensure this contest will remain one to watch. For now, it’s a lesson in the power of a picture -- and the peril of getting it wrong.
Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, is throwing his weight behind the Trump administration’s hard-hitting military strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean.
This unfolding saga, which kicked off in September, centers on a U.S. military operation targeting alleged narcotics trafficking vessels, resulting in at least 95 reported deaths so far.
From the get-go, the administration has framed this as a counter-narcotics mission, but skepticism lingers among lawmakers about the broader intent, especially regarding ties to Venezuelan leadership.
Back in September, the U.S. military launched this aggressive campaign, taking out boats they claim are ferrying drugs through Caribbean waters.
With 95 alleged traffickers killed to date, the body count has raised eyebrows, yet the administration remains tight-lipped on hard evidence linking these vessels to narcotics.
It’s a bold move, no doubt, but without public proof, some wonder if this is more about sending a message than stopping shipments.
Fast forward to this week, and Senator Fetterman emerged from a private briefing with a surprising vote of confidence for the operation.
He called the intel “pretty comprehensive,” insisting the strikes aren’t some wild free-for-all but are guided by precise data on who and what’s aboard these boats.
“I mean, there’s extensive intelligence and they know exactly who’s on that boat and what’s actually on that boat right now,” Fetterman told NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo on “CUOMO.”
Still, not everyone’s buying the narrow “counter-drugs” label that officials keep slapping on this campaign.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, pressed Trump officials for clarity on whether this is really just about drugs or a stepping stone to confronting Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
Graham’s frustration was palpable when he noted their vague response, hinting that a stronger push against Maduro might be the unspoken goal.
President Trump hasn’t helped clear the fog, keeping his cards close while calling Maduro an “illegitimate leader” whose time is running out.
White House chief of staff Susie Wiles reportedly said Trump “wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle,” as noted in a Vanity Fair profile, which suggests a personal vendetta might be at play. If that’s the strategy, it’s a risky chess move in an already volatile region.
Meanwhile, voices like Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma and Secretary of State Marco Rubio stick to the script, emphasizing the mission is about halting the flow of drugs that harm American communities, not toppling a regime.
Is the Department of Homeland Security caught in a political crossfire, or is Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) spinning a tale for the cameras?
Reports surfaced recently when Omar claimed her U.S.-born son was stopped by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents after a routine Target run, only for DHS to fire back with a sharp denial, labeling the accusation a publicity maneuver, The Hill reported.
Let’s rewind to the weekend when this drama unfolded. During an interview with local station WCCO, Omar recounted how her son was allegedly pulled over by ICE agents on a Saturday after a shopping stop. She insisted he was released only after showing his passport, a document he carries out of fear of being targeted.
According to Omar, this incident reeks of racial profiling, a charge that’s become a lightning rod in debates over immigration enforcement. Her spokesperson doubled down, painting ICE as an agency out of control and prone to questionable tactics.
“The congresswoman’s son and others were pulled over by ICE, racially profiled, and forced to prove their citizenship with a passport,” Omar’s spokesperson declared. That’s a heavy accusation, but where’s the hard proof? Without corroborating evidence, it’s tough to take this at face value when balanced against official records.
On the flip side, DHS didn’t mince words when responding on Tuesday. They flatly denied any encounter with Omar’s son, stating there’s “absolutely ZERO record” of such a stop. It’s a bold counterpunch, suggesting the whole story might be more fiction than fact.
“[ICE] has absolutely ZERO record of its officers or agents pulling over Congresswoman Omar’s son,” DHS posted on X, pulling no punches. They went further, calling the claims a “PR stunt” designed to tarnish the agency’s reputation. If true, that’s a low blow in a climate already thick with distrust of federal enforcement.
DHS also tackled the profiling narrative head-on, labeling such accusations as “disgusting, reckless and categorically FALSE.” That’s a strong stance, but it raises questions about public trust in an agency often under scrutiny for its methods.
Meanwhile, Omar’s camp isn’t backing down. Her spokesperson accused ICE of being a “rogue agency beyond reform,” hinting at deeper systemic issues. It’s a fiery retort, but without concrete evidence of this specific incident, it feels more like rhetoric than resolution.
Adding fuel to this fire are recent comments from President Trump about Minnesota’s Somali community. His assertion that “hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia are completely taking over” the state has stirred controversy, especially given the Minnesota Daily’s report that most Somalis there are citizens or permanent residents.
Trump’s blunt language, including calling Omar “garbage” during a Cabinet meeting, only deepens the divide. It’s a stark reminder of how immigration debates often turn personal, overshadowing policy discussions with raw emotion.
Let’s not forget the underlying issue: ICE’s role in communities where citizenship status can be a flashpoint. While Omar’s story, if true, would be concerning, the lack of documentation makes it a he-said-she-said battle. Conservatives might argue this is another attempt to paint enforcement as inherently biased, a narrative that often ignores the complexities of border security.
From a right-of-center lens, it’s hard not to see this as a potential overreach by Omar to score political points. Pushing divisive claims without solid evidence risks undermining legitimate grievances about immigration policy. Still, empathy is due—if her son felt targeted, that fear deserves a hearing, even if the facts don’t align.
What’s clear is that trust between public figures and federal agencies is at a low ebb. Both sides have dug in, with DHS defending its integrity and Omar’s team alleging misconduct. The truth likely lies in the messy middle, but without records or witnesses, it’s a puzzle missing key pieces.
Ultimately, this spat highlights a broader struggle over how immigration enforcement is perceived and executed. While conservatives champion law and order, there’s room to question whether agencies like ICE always operate with transparency. Until both sides prioritize facts over flair, expect more of these headline-grabbing showdowns.
Hold onto your wallets, folks—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., known for her fiery critiques of wealth and privilege, has some explaining to do about a nearly $50,000 campaign spending spree in Puerto Rico.
Reports surfaced last week revealing that AOC’s campaign dropped a hefty sum on luxury hotels, high-end dining, and a venue rental during a trip earlier this year, Fox News reported.
This lavish expenditure happened while she attended a Bad Bunny concert in San Juan, raising eyebrows among even her staunchest defenders.
The details, uncovered by Fox News Digital through AOC’s latest campaign filings, paint a picture of extravagance that’s tough to reconcile with her public rhetoric.
Over $15,000 went to two upscale hotels in San Juan during the time of Bad Bunny’s “Residency” tour at El Choli Coliseo de Puerto Rico.
That tour, a star-studded event running from August through September, was just part of the backdrop for her campaign’s spending.
Additionally, her campaign shelled out more than $10,500 on meals and catering services in the same reporting period, covering July through September.
During this trip, AOC was spotted in social media videos visiting a housing development in Puerto Rico, speaking out against gentrification—a cause in line with her platform.
Yet, footage from August 10 also shows her enjoying box seats at Bad Bunny’s concert, dancing alongside Rep. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y.
While it’s fine to unwind, using campaign funds for such opulence raises questions about whether this aligns with the image of a fighter for the working class.
Conservative voices were quick to highlight the apparent contradiction, with some labeling it a clear case of double standards.
“AOC rails nonstop against ‘the rich,’ yet drops tens of thousands in campaign cash on luxury hotels, upscale catering, and elite venues on a Puerto Rico trip,” said GOP Florida congressional hopeful Michael Carbonara.
Carbonara’s critique reflects a broader frustration among those who feel progressive leaders often dodge scrutiny for enjoying the perks they publicly condemn.
Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer also weighed in, noting, “This is not new for her, she's a hypocrite.”
Spicer referenced AOC’s past appearance at the MET Gala in a designer dress emblazoned with “Tax The Rich,” suggesting a pattern of embracing luxury while criticizing it—a sharp but fair observation about political optics.
Is a presidential library just a fancy bookshelf if the funds aren’t there? Former President Joe Biden is finding out the hard way, as his efforts to build a lasting legacy in Delaware are hitting a financial wall, according to a recent New York Times report.
The crux of the story is that Biden has managed to secure only a tiny portion of the money needed for his envisioned presidential library, facing stagnant donations and internal debates about merging with existing institutions, the New York Post reported.
Let’s start at the beginning: Biden’s library foundation hasn’t seen a single new donation in 2024, relying instead on a $4 million surplus from his 2021 inauguration.
Fast forward to 2025, and the foundation remains tight-lipped about current totals, admitting only that Biden is just now kicking off active fundraising efforts.
Even their projections are grim—they’ve told the IRS they expect to raise a mere $11.3 million by the end of 2027, a far cry from the $200 million goal set by aides.
Compare that to Barack Obama’s Chicago presidential center, which has already amassed a staggering $1.5 billion, or Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to raise over $950 million for his Miami library before leaving office.
Here’s where it gets sticky: some of Biden’s most steadfast supporters haven’t even been approached to contribute, while other Democratic donors are openly uninterested, either distracted by opposition to Trump or disillusioned with Biden’s tenure.
“So far, some of Mr. Biden’s most loyal contributors said they had not been contacted by anyone about giving to the library,” The New York Times reported. Talk about a cold shoulder—how do you build a legacy when your own base hasn’t gotten the memo?
Then there’s John Morgan, a prominent Democratic donor, who didn’t mince words: “The Biden staff, they ruined any type of good library for him. He’ll be lucky to have a bookmobile,” he told The Times. Ouch—that’s not just a critique; it’s a funeral dirge for fundraising hopes.
With funds drying up, there’s talk of merging Biden’s library with existing institutions at the University of Delaware, potentially tapping into millions already earmarked for “Biden Hall.”
Right now, these are separate endeavors competing for the same donor pool, but many loyalists hope that combining them could streamline costs and salvage the project.
Neither the university nor the library foundation is commenting on a potential merger, leaving the idea dangling like a fiscal lifeline nobody wants to grab.
Biden himself has stayed vague, saying only that he wants the library in his home state of Delaware and prefers a smaller, less costly setup than Obama’s sprawling center.
The foundation claims delays stem from “intensive research,” including tours of other presidential libraries, but with a $200 million target looking like a pipe dream, one wonders if they’re just stalling for time.
Ultimately, Biden’s library saga feels like a metaphor for broader challenges—good intentions bogged down by poor outreach and a donor class that’s moved on. While a modest Delaware tribute could still emerge, the contrast with other presidents’ fundraising juggernauts is stark, raising questions about how history will remember this chapter.