Shocking revelations from a new book have exposed deep concerns that were held by members of then-President Joe Biden’s Cabinet about his ability to handle a crisis.
According to the expose's authors, in the final year of Biden's presidency, some Cabinet members privately questioned whether he, then 81, could effectively respond to urgent national security threats, especially in the dead of night, as Axios reports, and these doubts, detailed in a 2025 publication, paint a troubling picture of a White House shielding its leader from scrutiny.
Original Sin, authored by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson, reveals that several Cabinet secretaries lacked confidence in Biden’s crisis response capacity, with access to him heavily restricted in 2023 and 2024. The book, based on over 200 interviews primarily with Democratic Party insiders, was first discussed in depth by CNN this week, and its findings highlight what was a deliberate strategy to limit Biden’s interactions, raising questions about his leadership.
Concerns about Biden’s mental sharpness emerged as early as 2023. Cabinet secretaries noted that access to the president was curtailed starting in October of that year. One secretary described the Cabinet as being “kept at bay” during this period.
Biden’s inner circle played a significant role in limiting his exposure. Top aides shielded him in meetings, ensuring minimal direct contact with Cabinet members. One secretary remarked that for months, they “didn’t have access” to Biden, suggesting a calculated White House effort.
By 2024, interactions with Biden had dwindled further. A second Cabinet secretary noted that access “dropped off considerably” that year. Most communication funneled through aides who briefed Biden, sidelining direct Cabinet input. One rare meeting in 2023 or 2024 left a lasting impression. A Cabinet secretary observed Biden appearing “disoriented” and “out of it,” with his mouth agape. This troubling moment fueled doubts about his capacity to lead effectively.
Biden’s staff worked to keep him insulated from bad news. Their goal, according to insiders, was to maintain his morale. This approach, however, left Cabinet members frustrated and disconnected from the president.
One secretary criticized the staff’s handling, saying they “did him wrong” by not addressing his limitations. They questioned why no one confronted Biden about his struggles. This lack of candor, the secretary argued, undermined effective governance.
A second secretary raised concerns about Biden’s decision-making process. While the president was said to be “making the decisions,” aides heavily shaped the options presented. This led to doubts about whether Biden was truly in control.
A third Cabinet secretary offered a nuanced perspective. They dismissed claims of dementia but acknowledged Biden’s age-related limitations, noting he could only manage “four to six good hours a day.” When fatigued, his performance reportedly suffered.
The same secretary lamented the difficulty of advising Biden honestly. They believed he should have served only one term to preserve his legacy. This sentiment reflected broader concerns about his fitness for office.
Biden’s team pushed back against these claims. A spokesperson insisted there was no evidence Biden failed to perform his duties. They highlighted his effectiveness as president, dismissing the book’s revelations as baseless.
Jill Biden also defended her husband’s record. Appearing on ABC’s The View earlier this month, she and the former president countered reports of his decline. She emphasized what she said was her husband's tireless work ethic, describing him as constantly engaged with briefings and staff.
Mrs. Biden stressed that critics lacked firsthand knowledge of what occurred. She noted that book authors were not in the White House to witness Biden’s daily efforts. Her defense aimed to refute narratives of a disengaged president.
Despite these efforts, the book’s revelations raise serious questions about Biden’s leadership in his final year in office. The accounts of restricted access and diminished capacity paint a stark contrast to the public image his team sought to project. For many Americans, these disclosures underscore the need for strong, capable leadership in times of crisis.
