Former President Joe Biden suspended his re-election bid one year ago Monday, in an unprecedented move that ended his more than 50-year career in politics and rocked the Democratic Party, with those on the left still reeling from the impact.

On July 21, 2024, days after President Donald Trump accepted the GOP nomination, Biden ended his re-election campaign amid mounting pressure from within his own party.

The unprecedented announcement came as an increasing number of Democrat lawmakers had started to publicly call for Biden to step aside, and the party’s leadership reportedly was engaged in efforts to convince Biden, then 81 years old, he could not win the November 2024 general election against Trump.

Doubts about Biden’s viability at the top of the Democratic Party’s 2024 ticket began seeping out into the mainstream after his halting delivery and awkward answers were placed on full display for a national audience during the June 2024 presidential debate with Trump in Atlanta.

The performance sparked widespread panic among Democrats and almost immediately spurred calls from political pundits, editorial writers and some party donors for Biden to step aside as the party’s 2024 standard-bearer.

As Biden struggled to regain his footing, an increasing number of House Democrats publicly urged the president to end his re-election bid.

Biden huddled with worried Democrats, including governors and congressional leaders, in the wake of the debate debacle and was also engaged in ‘working the phones,’ according to campaign officials. 

Biden began the week of his withdrawal in a defiant posture, telling congressional Democrats he was committed to campaigning against and beating Trump. Biden also urged lawmakers to stop focusing on the debate and end the calls for his withdrawal — pleas that he said only helped Trump. 

Biden followed that up with a call with members of the Congressional Black Caucus and also gained the support of members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. 

However, concerns mounted and intensified. Democratic lawmakers met behind closed doors hoping to come to a consensus and support the president, but some were hesitant. 

The Biden campaign met with Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill and, for days, the White House, the Biden campaign and the president himself said Biden had no intention of dropping out of the race. 

Then-White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre had told reporters that the president was ‘absolutely not’ considering dropping out.

Additionally, Quentin Fulks, the principal deputy Biden campaign manager, emphasized that ‘the president is in this race to win it. He is the Democratic nominee.’

On the day after the presidential debate, Biden acknowledged at a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, ‘I know I’m not a young man, to state the obvious.’

Upon suspending his campaign, Biden quickly endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to take his spot at the top of the ticket. She received the party’s presidential nominee weeks later at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

Months later, Trump defeated Harris in a stunning, landslide victory, sweeping all swing states and delivering him a win in not only the Electoral College, but the popular vote as well. 

The Democratic Party is still grappling with Biden’s withdrawal a year later, looking for a new standard-bearer, while the former president and his team fall under investigation by both the executive and legislative branches. 

In May, leaked audio from Biden’s interview with former special counsel Robert Hur showed the president struggling with key memories, including when his son Beau died, when he left the vice presidency, why he had classified documents he shouldn’t have had and more. 

The audio was leaked after more than a year of congressional lawmakers demanding its release amid questions about the former president’s memory lapses and mental acuity.

Meanwhile, the White House Counsel’s Office and the Justice Department are probing Biden’s use of the autopen and whether signatures were printed at his direction or at the discretion of his senior staff. 

An autopen is a machine that physically holds a pen and features programming to imitate a person’s signature. Unlike a stamp or a digitized print of a signature, the autopen has the capability to hold various types of pens, from a ballpoint to a permanent marker, according to descriptions of autopen machines available for purchase. 

Biden used the autopen to sign a slew of documents while in office. He also used the autopen to sign final pardons, including preemptive pardons for members of his family, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley and members and staff of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots. He only signed one pardon by hand, for his son Hunter, after vowing to the American people for months he would not do so. 

In his final weeks in office, Biden granted clemency and pardoned more than 1,500 individuals, in what the White House described at the time as the largest single-day act of clemency by a U.S. president.

Over on Capitol Hill, the House Oversight Committee is probing a cover-up of Biden’s declining mental health, subpoenaing a number of former Biden officials for testimony and the Senate Subcomittee on Investigations is requesting NARA records relating to Biden’s declining mental and physical health. 

Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report. 

After years of Republicans leading the push for government transparency on Jeffrey Epstein, the notoriously well-connected sex offender who died in jail in 2019, Democrats are now leading the charge to release the so-called ‘Epstein files.’

‘I’m glad they’re joining the party, but they should have been a little more transparent a year ago,’ Rep. Mark Messmer, R-Ind., told Fox News Digital.

Seizing on the Republicans’ demand for transparency about Epstein during former President Joe Biden’s administration, President Donald Trump campaigned in 2024 on releasing the ‘Epstein files’ and his allegedly incriminating ‘client list.’

But Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI released a memo this week concluding that Epstein died by suicide in his cell, there is no ‘client list,’ and the supposed ‘Epstein files’ are thousands of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography subject to court-ordered sealing.

The Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files has created a rift among the ‘MAGA’ wing of the Republican Party, who are demanding more transparency. 

‘We should expect transparency, no matter what administration is involved, if there was or wasn’t a client list, if there was or wasn’t video. I mean, we should expect transparency and full disclosure of whatever they are covering up,’ Messmer told Fox News Digital. 

Democrats have been quick to seize on the intraparty conflict. 

‘It’s pretty rich on their part,’ Rep. David Kustoff, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital. ‘But again, if there is no new information, then that’s fine. Just have the Department of Justice come out and explain that and answer questions. And if there is something, but it’s not relevant, well, explain that also.’

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has reiterated that ‘all credible evidence should come out’ regarding Epstein and criticized Democrats who he said are politicizing the issue.

California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna tied a procedural vote on releasing all Epstein files to an unrelated crypto bill earlier this week, and Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, announced he would be filing a resolution on Monday to demand the Trump administration release all files related to the late pedophile’s case.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, including Jamie Raskin, D-Md., Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and progressives like Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas., are also seizing on Republican fractures over the Epstein case, demanding a public hearing on the issue. 

‘The Democrats will never give Donald Trump credit for anything,’ Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital.Where were the questions when Biden was in office?’

And Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas, said Democrats’ newfound investment in transparency on Epstein ‘proves that all along it was just political.’

‘I respect a call for transparency,’ Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, added. ‘If it’s from a Democrat or a Republican, I totally respect that. I have no idea of anything on this front. And I hope to just know that people are being transparent and that things aren’t being done in any nefarious way or for any nefarious reason. I think a lot of it’s overblown.’

‘I put the Epstein matter in my don’t know, don’t care file,’ Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., told Fox News Digital.

Recent studies confirm what many clinicians, myself included, have quietly observed for years: Liberals — especially young liberals — are reporting worse mental health than their conservative peers. Statistician Nate Silver’s Substack recently spotlighted this disparity, and while many factors are at play, one explanation remains oddly absent from the national conversation: the psychological cost of cutting people off over politics. 

In my work as a clinical psychologist, I’ve watched this pattern unfold in real time. Some clients describe rising anxiety, loneliness and a growing sense of disconnection — but they don’t initially trace it back to politics. Only after reflection do they realize: they’ve quietly (or, in some cases quite loudly and proudly) distanced themselves from family, ended friendships, or withdrawn from romantic prospects — not because of mistreatment, but because of political disagreement. 

As I was researching for my upcoming book Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly, I noticed a striking pattern — what I now call ‘The Five Ds’: defriending, declining to date, disinviting, decreasing contact and outright dropping someone over political views. These behaviors are often framed as moral stands. But when practiced habitually, they can degrade the very relationships we rely on for emotional well-being. Research backs this up — liberals are statistically more likely than conservatives to engage in the Five Ds over political differences. 

The cost is real. The U.S. surgeon general has declared loneliness a public health crisis, linking it to depression, anxiety and even physical health problems. Social support is a powerful protective factor — it helps regulate emotions, buffer stress and reinforce a person’s sense of meaning and connection.  

As social creatures, humans rely on relationships to regulate stress. When those bonds are cut over politics — especially through the habitual use of the Five Ds — liberals may be isolating themselves in ways that make them more vulnerable to loneliness, anxiety and diminished emotional regulation. 

Some do this in the name of safety, seeing opposing views as threatening. But this is a dangerous shift. Conflating disagreement with danger undermines mental health and shrinks our capacity for dialogue. Even The New York Times recently published an essay titled ‘Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?’ in which former Obama speechwriter David Litt wrestles with whether to stay in contact with his conservative brother-in-law. To his credit, Litt expresses openness to reconnecting. But his tone is hesitant, not declarative.  

The piece reads less like someone awakening to the dangers of ideological cutoffs and more like someone reluctantly conceding a grudge. That this question — whether to maintain ties with family — was posed at all in a national newspaper shows how far the goalposts have shifted. Ostracizing loved ones over votes once seemed extreme. Now it’s mainstream content. 

This mindset of seeing opposing views as intolerable, or even threatening, isn’t just common — it’s increasingly celebrated, even when it harms us. The phrase ‘words are violence’ may feel righteous, but taken literally, it breeds anxiety and isolation. When we view differing viewpoints as threats, we push people away — not because we must, but because we’ve convinced ourselves we should. The result? We’re lonelier and more brittle than ever. 

None of this is to say that all relationships must be preserved. Boundaries are important. But ideological purging — done habitually and reflexively — is something different. It’s corrosive. Ironically, conservatives — often caricatured as emotionally rigid — may be faring better precisely because they are less likely to sever ties over politics. Their emotional well-being may benefit from tolerating disagreement and maintaining bonds across divides. 

As a psychologist, I don’t believe political ideology is destiny. But relational habits shape mental health. When we cut off those closest to us, even over serious disagreement, we deprive ourselves of a key buffer against emotional distress. What’s worse, we often do so under the illusion that the cutoff is virtuous. 

The solution is not to avoid politics. It’s to resist the reflex to cut and run. That begins with a simple mindset shift: disagreement isn’t danger, and tension doesn’t always mean toxicity. We can learn to talk through our differences — even when it’s hard. 

Mental health and free speech are more connected than people realize. If we want to feel less anxious, less isolated and more connected, we need to rethink the social costs of ideological purity. The Five Ds may feel righteous in the moment — but the long-term cost to our mental health may be far too high. 

Republican legal activists are filing a complaint in defense of U.S. Attorney Alina Habba after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for federal district judges to remove her from her position. 

Jeffries’ complaints about Habba stemmed from her decision to charge Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., with obstructing Homeland Security agents during an altercation at an immigration facility in Newark on May 9. 

McIver has pleaded not guilty. She is now headed for trial on Nov. 10.

‘The so-called U.S. Attorney in NJ maliciously indicted Congresswoman LaMonica McIver for doing her job,’ said Jeffries in a post on X. ‘Habba is a woefully unqualified political hack who must go.

‘She must be rejected by the Federal District Court Judges who are considering whether to retain her.’ 

The Article III Project filed a House Ethics complaint against Jeffries over the weekend for ‘improperly inserting himself into a criminal proceeding.’ 

‘This is clear corruption by House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries.’

Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Habba, a former Trump campaign legal spokesperson and White House counselor, to the position in March in an acting capacity. 

Habba’s confirmation has been held up in the Senate. But if a majority of U.S. district court judges in New Jersey decide to allow her to retain her position on Monday, she could stay on through the Trump presidency. 

Of the 17 sitting district court judges from New Jersey, 15 were nominated by Democratic presidents. 

‘A House member – particularly the House Democratic leader – who disagrees with the merits of a pending criminal case abuses his official position when he attempts to strong-arm federal judges to corruptly prejudice the ongoing criminal proceeding by firing the U.S. attorney for the purely political reason of protecting a partisan House colleague,’ the complaint said, asking the House Ethics Committee to hold Jeffries ‘accountable.’ 

McIver and two other members of Congress said they were conducting a congressional oversight visit that coincided with an immigration protest, when a clash ensued with federal agents. 

According to a DOJ press release, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was allowed into the Delaney Hall immigration facility’s secured area and then federal agents warned him to leave, but he refused to do so.

When officers tried to arrest Baraka, McIver allegedly blocked them, putting her arms around the mayor, and ‘slammed her forearm’ into one officer while grabbing another and using both of her forearms to forcibly strike the second officer.

Each of the first two counts carries a maximum eight-year prison sentence. The third carries up to one year.

The Campaign for Accountability, a liberal watchdog group, has filed a complaint against Habba for bringing charges against McIver and Baraka, alleging she politically targeted the pair in retaliation for participating in the protest and oversight visit because their views oppose those of President Donald Trump. 

Fox News Digital has reached out to Jeffries’ office for comment. 

Fox News’ Michael Dorgan contributed to this report. 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is getting broadsided from her left over her vote on an amendment aimed at blocking U.S. funding for Israel’s Iron Dome.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are criticizing the progressive firebrand for voting against an amendment by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., to block $500 million in Congress’ annual defense spending bill that was aimed at helping fund Israeli missile defense systems.

‘An arms embargo means keeping all arms out of the hands of a genocidal military, no exceptions. This is why we oppose Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’[s] vote against an amendment that would have blocked $500 million in funding for the Israeli military’s Iron Dome program,’ the DSA said over the weekend.

The DSA noted she did vote against the defense funding bill itself, thereby ‘voting against funding for the imperialist military-industrial complex and the Israeli genocide.’

The group added, however, ‘We were further deeply disappointed by her clarifying statement on her position on the Iron Dome.’

‘Along with other US-funded interceptor systems, the Iron Dome has emboldened Israel to invade or bomb no less than five different countries in the past two years,’ the DSA said.

‘The fact that Representative Ocasio-Cortez acknowledges that Israel is carrying out this genocide makes her support for military aid all the more disappointing and incongruous. We urge the representative to continue voting against the Iron Dome, whether it is part of a larger defense spending bill or as a stand-alone bill.’

The DSA commended Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Al Green, D-Texas, for voting against the amendment.

Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign and congressional office for comment.

She posted on X after the vote, ‘Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it.’

‘What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue. I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end,’ she said.

‘That is a simple and clear difference of opinion that has long been established. I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.’

The clash exemplifies how Israel continues to drive an ideological wedge within the Democratic Party. 

It’s not the first time Ocasio-Cortez caught heat from the progressive base for failing to take a critical enough stance on Israel.

In 2021, the New York Democrat cried on the House floor after voting ‘present’ on funding Israel’s Iron Dome defense system.

‘Yes, I wept,’ she wrote in an open letter to constituents after the incident. ‘I wept at the complete lack of care for the human beings that are impacted by these decisions. I wept at an institution choosing a path of maximum volatility and minimum consideration for its own political convenience.’

The overall bill that passed last week calls for $832 billion in defense funding for fiscal year 2026.

That’s separate from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), another annual bill that sets defense and national security policy each fiscal year – essentially detailing how those funds will be spent.

Greene’s amendment to strip $500 billion going toward Israeli missile defense programs lost in a lopsided 6-422 vote.