President Joe Biden is expected to discuss the future of his re-election campaign with family at Camp David on Sunday, following a nationally televised debate Thursday that left many fellow Democrats worried about his ability to beat former President Donald Trump in November, according to five people familiar with the matter, NBC News reported.

Biden’s trip was planned before Thursday’s debate. He and first lady Jill Biden are scheduled to join their children and grandchildren there late Saturday.

So far, the party’s top leaders have offered public support for Biden, including in tweets posted by former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Senior congressional Democrats, including Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Nancy Pelosi of California, have privately expressed concerns about his viability, said two sources apprised of those discussions, even as they all publicly back the president.

One Democratic House member who believes Biden should drop out of the race — but has yet to call for that publicly — told NBC News that three colleagues expressed the same sentiment to him during votes on the House floor Friday.

House leaders have not wavered publicly, and their aides denied that they are expressing doubts behind closed doors.

“Speaker Pelosi has full confidence in President Biden and looks forward to attending his inauguration on January 20, 2025,” Ian Krager, a spokesman for the former House speaker said. “Any suggestion that she has engaged in a different course of action is simply not true.”

Christie Stephenson, a spokeswoman for Jeffries, the House minority leader, said her boss has “repeatedly made clear publicly and privately that he supports President Joe Biden and the Democratic ticket from top to bottom.”

Brianna Frias said that Clyburn, who is traveling to Wisconsin this weekend to campaign for the president, “has total confidence in President Joe Biden and the Biden-Harris ticket.

“Any reports alleging that the Congressman has expressed anything other than firm support of President Biden are completely untrue,” Frias said.

At the same time, there is an understanding among top Democrats that Biden should be given space to determine next steps. They believe only the president, in consultation with his family, can decide whether to move forward or to end his campaign early — and that he won’t respond well to being pushed.

“The decision-makers are two people — it’s the president and his wife,” one of the sources familiar with the discussions said, adding: “Anyone who doesn’t understand how deeply personal and familial this decision will be isn’t knowledgeable about the situation.”

This account of a president and his party in crisis just a little more than four months before an election they say will determine the fate of democracy is drawn from interviews with more than a dozen Democratic officials, operatives, aides and donors. All of them spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to describe matters as sensitive as whether a sitting president might give up his re-election bid and how he could be replaced on the ballot.

Despite delivering a rousing speech at a rally in North Carolina on Friday that calmed some of his allies, Biden was described by one person familiar with his mood as humiliated, devoid of confidence and painfully aware that the physical images of him at the debate — eyes staring into the distance, mouth agape — will live beyond his presidency, along with a performance that at times was meandering, incoherent and difficult to hear.

“It’s a mess,” this person said.

Another person familiar with the dynamics said Biden will ultimately listen to only one adviser.

“The only person who has ultimate influence with him is the first lady,” this person said. “If she decides there should be a change of course, there will be a change of course.”

After publication of this report, a source familiar reached out to stress that the Camp David gathering was not a formal family meeting.

“Any discussion about the campaign is expected to be informal or an afterthought,” the source said. “No one is sitting down for a formal or determinative discussion.”

Anita Dunn, one of Biden’s handful of closest advisers, said on MSNBC’s “The Weekend” Saturday that Biden has not discussed dropping out of the race with aides and that internal talks have focused on moving forward.

“We had a bad debate,” Dunn said. “What do we do next? You know, the president, above all, is focused on what do we do next? What do I need to go do?”

These private discussions among Biden, his family members and his top advisers are being held against the backdrop of a reckoning for Democrats who were shocked both by Biden’s appearance and the frequency with which his train of thought appeared to veer off track.

His campaign held a conference call Saturday with members of the Democratic National Committee, which a Biden campaign official described as an effort to reassure party officials and demonstrate that his team is communicating with its allies.

“We’re driving this,” the official said.

Biden’s top aides and advisers have told his staff to stay the course in meetings and discussions. Their message, according to one senior administration official: “We’ll weather the storm, just like we always have.”

Sources have described three buckets of Democrats: those who will defend Biden under any circumstances, those who are ready to dump him, and those who are waiting to see what he does — and what his poll numbers look like in the coming days and weeks — before passing judgment. It’s the third bucket that Democratic insiders are monitoring closely.

“Democrats need to take a big breath and look at that polling, look at swing voters,” said one state Democratic Party chair. “Until I see something differently, he’s the person that’s put this coalition together, he’s the person that has the record, he’s the person that beat Donald Trump. Until I see something differently, he’s still the best person to beat Donald Trump.”

The Biden campaign declined to comment for this piece, instead pointing to a memo Saturday from campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon that made the case that Biden can still win, pointing to the more than $27 million they raised between debate day and Friday evening.

Notably, however, O’Malley Dillon nodded to the possibility that there might be some tough polling ahead — but said the blame will rest with the media: “If we do see changes in polling in the coming weeks, it will not be the first time that overblown media narratives have driven temporary dips in the polls.”

The discussions among some Democrats include weighing what the party’s best path to defeating Trump might be — sticking with an 81-year-old incumbent who could have another moment like Thursday night at any time between now and Election Day, or going with a different candidate whose path to nomination at the party’s convention next month could be a messy process.

Biden insisted Friday that he will remain the party’s standard-bearer in November, telling a crowd at his rally in North Carolina: “I would not be running again if I didn’t believe with all my heart and soul I can do this job.”

The president has spent much of the past 48 hours attending fundraising events with some of the very Democrats most concerned about the impact of his debate performance.

He addressed it head-on at one event Saturday.

“I understand the concern about the debate — I get it,” he added. “I didn’t have a great night.”

Party elites will urge him to exit the race only if they determine that he is “not viable and negatively impacting the House and Senate races,” said one big-time donor who is close to both Obama and Biden.

Inherent in the wait-and-see approach is an acknowledgment that there is no clear replacement for Biden and that his departure could touch off a bloody eleventh-hour intraparty battle that might allow Trump to cruise to victory.

There’s also no feasible way to force him from his perch. All but a handful of the delegates to the Democratic convention were elected on their pledge to nominate him at the party’s convention in August. If he chooses to stand for that nomination, party insiders say, he will get it.

Moreover, according to a senior Democratic official, the party leadership would have much more control over choosing a replacement if Biden were to drop out after receiving the nomination than if he did so beforehand. Once a candidate is officially nominated, there is a process for the Democratic National Committee members to choose a successor. Biden is the dominant force at the DNC, and his preference for a successor would surely carry sway.

If Biden were to exit before that, his delegates might do what he asked of them — but they wouldn’t be bound in the same way they are now. In that scenario, the delegates could nominate anyone, and there could be a political brawl at the convention.

“We need to have as much discipline as emotion,” the senior Democratic official said. “It’s not politically smart for Biden to step down.”

Octogenarian President Biden has difficulty functioning outside a six-hour window of daylight, according to an alarming new report.

The 81-year-old commander in chief is prone to absent-minded gaffes and fatigue outside of the hours of 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. or while traveling abroad, White House aides told Axios in a bizarre attempt to spin his disastrous debate performance.

The public split screen isn’t new to many inside the White House, where top aides have meticulously stage-managed minutiae such as Biden’s sleep schedule, his orthopedic shoes, his walks to Marine One and his climb aboard Air Force One to try to blunt concerns about his age.

During the 90-minute trainwreck of a presidential debate — which kicked off five hours after the president’s peak performance window, at 9 p.m. — Biden often appeared vacant or slack-jawed, and on several occasions froze mid-thought, misspoke, or struggled to form coherent sentences.

The shocking late-night performance escalated fears about whether Biden is capable of serving another four years. He would be aged 86 by the end of his second term.

Biden attempted to quell voters’ concerns about his mental acuity with a much more energetic speech at a rally Friday in Raleigh, N.C. — during his more preferred time frame in the early afternoon.

“I don’t walk as easy as I used to, I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to, I don’t debate as well as I used to,” he said to a cheering crowd in the battleground state just after 1 p.m.

“But I know what I do know: I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. And I know how to do this job, I know how to get things done.”

Despite his better daytime showing Friday, Biden has faced a slew of calls from donors and pundits to drop out of the race.

Biden, however, has refused to step aside, suggesting the party leaders will maintain their support for him as well.

Former Democrat Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have also publicly expressed their continued support.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon on Saturday continued to defend the actions that resulted in his prison sentence.

In an interview with NBC News, Bannon continued to assert that the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoenas “don’t mean anything” and reiterated arguments about executive privilege that have been rejected in courts.

The vocal ally of former President Donald Trump is set to report to prison by Monday to serve a four-month sentence for defying subpoenas to appear before Congress during the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Though Bannon was convicted in 2022, his sentence was put on hold while he sought to appeal the convictions. A last-ditch effort to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected earlier this week, meaning Bannon has to report to prison by July 1.

When asked what his endgame is, Bannon told NBC News it was “victory or death of this republic.”

“If we don’t win the — first of all, they shred the Constitution. It is the death of the constitutional American republic we know,” he continued.

It’s a claim he made earlier this month during his speech at the conservative Turning Point USA conference.

“Ladies and gentleman, it’s very simple: victory or death!” Bannon said during his speech as the audience cheered.

Bannon’s prison sentence stems from being held in contempt of Congress after defying the Jan. 6 committee’s request for testimony and documents. White House records had shown that Bannon had multiple conversations with Trump on or immediately before Jan. 6.

He continued to reject a question from NBC News about the content of those conversations, calling them “personal and private” and pointing to executive privilege claims, which the Jan. 6 committee said would not prevent him from having to testify.

Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro has remained behind bars since March on a four-month prison sentence. Navarro was convicted of the same charges as Bannon.

Amid all of the Democratic panic-texting prompted by President Joe Biden’s shaky debate performance Thursday, one name was curiously absent from many of those conversations: Vice President Kamala Harris.

Names including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer trended online as potential replacements for Biden on the Democratic ticket, while Harris — by several measures the most obvious and best-positioned candidate — was left to publicly defend Biden at the single worst moment of their four-year-old political partnership.

That was to the chagrin of some Harris allies, who are privately expressing frustration that her name is not being mentioned in the same company as other ambitious Democrats. But they can do little about it: Harris is laboring under a de facto mandate to defend him.

“There’s nothing that she could do externally that would be wise,” Democratic strategist Michael Trujillo said. “Her best strategy is to internally just be an amazing VP.”

She had to perform the role of good soldier almost immediately after the debate, with postmortem interviews having been pre-scheduled with CNN and MSNBC.

As Harris watched Biden’s face-plant, she and her team realized her response would be even more closely scrutinized, according to three aides granted anonymity to describe private discussions — and she quickly made clear to her staff that they shouldn’t try to sugarcoat how badly her running mate had performed.

Harris told her advisers her role was simple, the aides said: project confidence as quickly and clearly as possible as a leader of the party, while preserving credibility by recognizing how weak the debate had been.

“She wanted to have an acknowledgment of what everybody was seeing,” one senior Harris aide said.

Harris’ other two objectives were to zero in on attacking Trump, the aide said, and, perhaps more importantly, move the conversation away from the debate and toward Biden’s record.

“The president said himself that it was not his best performance,” Harris said at a campaign rally on Friday afternoon, before ripping former President Donald Trump for lies he told during the debate.

Harris went on to offer a familiar defense of Biden, one heard from many Democrats who have interacted with him closely.

“I see Joe Biden when the cameras are on and the cameras are off, in the Oval Office negotiating bipartisan deals,” Harris said. “I see him in the Situation Room keeping our country safe, [and] on the world stage meeting with world leaders who often ask for his advice.”

Some allies of the first Black and South Asian woman to be vice president fumed Friday about the lack of attention Harris drew as a possible replacement — not a surrogate — for Biden, passed over in the Beltway chatter for the likes of Newsom, Whitmer and even Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania.

“The fact that people keep coming back to this is so offensive to so many of us,” one veteran Democrat and Harris ally said. “They still don’t get that the message you’re saying to people, to this Democratic Party, is, we prefer a white person.”

Another added, “If they think they are going to get through South Carolina bashing an effective and qualified Black woman vice president — their instincts are as bad as I thought they were.”

Their frustration is unlikely to translate into an aggressive push for a change atop the ticket, as they are painfully aware that even acknowledging the possibility Biden might step away would spark a potential feeding frenzy. In other words, amid all the wishcasting surrounding other ambitious Democrats, Harris world can’t make her case without making things worse for Biden.

“Her doing anything externally is going to just hand reporters stories,” Trujillo said. “If she gets any text messages saying something critical, my best advice would be to not reply.”

Her biggest asset, in any case, isn’t a marketing machine — it’s political reality. Were Biden to leave the presidential race, hopping over Harris to any other potential candidate would present significant practical challenges. Only Harris, for instance, would have access to the coffers of the campaign she’s already a part of. Any other candidate would be faced with the tall task of building an infrastructure in a matter of months.

“It’s very hard to go from the minors to the Super Bowl, and compared to running for president, everything else is semi-pro,” said Jamal Simmons, a veteran Democratic operative and former Harris communications director.

There’s also the fact that Harris, despite a rocky couple of years in the polls, still has the highest name ID of any plausible Biden replacement. A recent POLITICO poll found that 41 percent of Democratic voters chose Harris as a hypothetical 2028 nominee. The next closest was Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, with 15 percent, and Newsom, with 14 percent.

Harris’ allies and aides believe that the VP has strengthened her profile in recent months, becoming more adept and confident after months of official and campaign travel. They’re also not shy about pointing out the optics of substituting any other candidate (likely White, possibly male) for Harris — a move that they suggest would upset not only Black delegates at the convention but also Black voters with whom the Biden campaign is already on shaky ground.

Still, she faces skepticism from the Democratic rank-and-file, who have been repelled by Harris’ weak polling numbers and see any of the more-popular-if-lesser-known governors as preferable.

“We actually have to win this election,” said one House Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about a party leader. “We should put someone up who would not only be a good president, but be a good candidate.”

There are no plans for Harris to go on a Biden defense tour, aides said. She is instead focused on fundraising in the coming days, where she will be in contact with now-jittery donors who are expected to bankroll Biden’s reelection. It will be an opportunity for her to both defend Biden and also make an impression, if only implicit, about her suitability as a replacement.

That is a delicate balancing act she might need to perform for weeks — perhaps until the late-August convention — as the ramifications of Thursday’s debate play out in the polls and on the hustings.

“If she didn’t, imagine what people would say: ‘Well, hold up, even the VP is not defending him.’ But it’s also important that people see and hear from a number of different voices and faces and the people who are in the conversation,” one Democrat close to the White House and campaign said.

President Biden is facing criticism from Gold Star families after falsely claiming during Thursday’s CNN Presidential Debate that he’s the “only president this century, this decade, that doesn’t have any troops dying anywhere in the world.”

Biden, after denying that 13 American service members were lost in Afghanistan, also said during the debate that “when he [Trump] was president, they were still killing people in Afghanistan. And he didn’t do anything about that.”

Darin Hoover, Gold Star father of Staff Sgt. Darin Taylor Hoover who was one of those 13 American service members killed in action on August 26, 2021, in Kabul, Afghanistan, had a strong reaction to Biden’s debate claims.

The younger Hoover, 31, was engaged to be married when he was killed. It was his third tour in Afghanistan.

“I knew Afghanistan was going to come up sooner or later,” said Hoover in an interview with Fox News Digital, recalling the debate.

“You know, the stumbling, bumbling buffoon that we have in the White House had the audacity to say that under his watch that no military members have died.”

In a statement to Fox News Digital after the initial publication of this story, a White House spokesperson said, “President Biden cares deeply about our service members, their families, and the immense sacrifices they have made. That’s why the President attended the dignified transfer of the 13 brave service members who lost their lives in Afghanistan on August 26, 2021; as well as, of the three who lost their lives in Jordan earlier this year.”

“As he said then and continues to believe now: Our country owes them a great deal of gratitude and a debt that we can never repay, and we will continue to honor their ultimate sacrifice,” the spokesperson added.

The Gold Star dad added, “the rage, the absolute disgust that I got, from hearing him say that–I started yelling back at the TV. Just out of frustration. He’s never acknowledged, not one time, any of our kids. He’s never said their names. Even to this day, I doubt very seriously that he even knows their names.”

Taylor’s mother, Kelly Barnett, had this to say to Biden: “What I would say to them is shame on you using our children as a pawn. It just makes me sick.”

“It’s sickening, but it goes to the way that we’ve been treated the past three years. It’s three years–we’re going on three years now. And it’s just disrespect after disrespect. This is probably the cherry on top.”

Hoover said the Biden administration sent the 13 Afghanistan Gold Star families letters – a year later.

“All the 13 families get a canned letter. It said the same exact same thing. And it looked like it was a photocopy of all of that. It was basically, we’re sorry that your service member had died, and that’s been it. We’ve had absolutely nothing before, nothing since,” Hoover added.

Hoover has made efforts to meet with Biden on behalf of the 13 lost on August 26, 2021. He said, “as much as we tried it in the past, when we’ve been going before Congress to try and get a meeting, it’s been denied because he’s a chicken.”

“[Biden] doesn’t want to deal with us. He knows that we’re in his face, but he doesn’t want to deal with us,” said Hoover.

According to the St. Charles County Veterans Museum in Missouri, Hoover was bestowed awards including the Purple Heart and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal after 11 years of service to the Marine Corps.

Sixty-eight percent of independent voters want President Joe Biden to drop out of the 2024 race after his disastrous debate performance, a JL Partners poll found on Friday, while 32 percent said he should remain the Democrats’ nominee.

Pressure mounted on Biden to step down after his Thursday performance, as many Democrats and media members displayed hysteria following his performance. A Biden campaign official said Biden will remain in the race. Biden will also reportedly participate in the ABC News debate in September.

Among independents, 41 percent of Biden 2020 voters believe he should drop out of the race, the poll found.

Forty-four percent of independents said they plan to vote for former President Donald Trump, up about four points after the debate.

In contrast, Biden lost support, the poll found. Only 24 percent said they intend to vote for Biden, down from 28 percent before the debate.

The poll sampled 805 independent voters immediately after the debate. The survey did not include a margin of error.

The post-debate polling appears to confirm pre-debate polling.

Sixty-four percent of voters believe the Democrat party should replace Biden as its nominee, a New York Times/Siena poll found this week, underscoring a lack of enthusiasm behind the president’s reelection campaign.

The poll asked voters, “Do you think Joe Biden should remain the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, or should there be a different Democratic nominee for president?”

• Yes: 29 percent
• No: 64 percent

Among Democrats, a slim majority said Biden should remain on the ticket:

• Yes: 52 percent
• No: 45 percent

An overwhelming amount of independents said Biden should not remain on the ticket:

• Yes: 21 percent
• No: 71 percent

Twenty percent of voters believe Biden’s America is headed “off on the wrong track,” the poll also found, while 70 percent said Biden is too old to be “an effective president.”

When asked which candidate is expected to win in November, former President Donald Trump led Biden by ten points (48-38 percent).

The Times poll sampled 1,226 registered voters from June 20-25 as has a margin of error of 3 points.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on June 27 recommended forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines for virtually all Americans.

“CDC recommends everyone ages 6 months and older receive an updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine to protect against the potentially serious outcomes of COVID-19 this fall and winter whether or not they have ever previously been vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine,” the agency said in a statement.

The COVID-19 vaccines now available, which are also broadly recommended, target the XBB.1.5 strain. But observational data indicate they provide short-lived protection against COVID-19 infection and hospitalization.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials, acting on advice from their advisers, recently directed vaccine manufacturers to produce COVID-19 vaccines with updated formulations.

Updated vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna will target the KP.2 variant, while an updated shot from Novavax will target the JN.1 variant.

The updated formulations are expected to be available in September.

CDC advisers earlier Thursday unanimously advised the CDC to recommend the forthcoming vaccines to virtually all Americans, even though no clinical efficacy or safety data are available for them.

Data from animal testing suggest that the vaccines trigger higher levels of antibodies than the shots currently available, manufacturers said previously.

CDC advisers considered a risk-based recommendation that would only say certain groups receive one of the vaccines but ultimately opted for what is known as a universal recommendation.

Dr. Jamie Loehr, one of the members, said before the vote that the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating young people, who are generally at little risk from COVID-19, had him leaning towards a risk-based approach. He changed his mind, though, after listening to a presentation from a CDC researcher.

Dr. Denise Jamieson, another member, said that members should not “get too caught up in cost-effectiveness currently.” She said, “If we compare it to other vaccine-preventable diseases it seems like a really good investment.”

Each dose of a new shot could cost up to $130, according to estimates presented during the meeting.

Pooled effectiveness estimates from studies of the currently available vaccines, which target the XBB strain, and the last slate of shots, which were bivalent, found that effectiveness against hospitalization due to COVID-19 was below 50 percent, the original threshold laid out by regulators.

Researchers with the CDC and other institutions have also found the protection wanes over time, one reason U.S. officials have turned the COVID-19 vaccine model into a once-a-year update similar to the influenza vaccination program.

Many Americans took the original COVID-19 vaccines but most have opted against receiving the newer shots. As of May 11, just 14.4 percent of children and 22.5 percent of adults have received one of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines, according to CDC surveys, which also found that many doctors have stopped recommending the shots because they’re focused on promoting other vaccines and worry recommending COVID-19 vaccination could increase hesitancy among patients to receiving the other vaccines.

Experts said in Thursday’s meeting that the message needs to be that people need another shot.

“We have to keep saying that over and over and over again—you need this year’s vaccine to be protected against this year’s strain of the virus,” Carol Hayes, who represents the American College of Nurse-Midwives as a liaison to the CDC panel, said during the session.

The CDC estimated that up to 116,000 hospitalizations from COVID-19 will be prevented over the next year with universal vaccine recommendations, assuming an initial 75 percent effectiveness against hospitalization.

The effectiveness was projected in certain scenarios to drop to 50 percent after three months, the CDC said.

The KP.2 strain is the dominant strain in the United States as of May 25, according to CDC data. The closely related KP.3 strain, and the JN.1 variant, are also causing a number of cases.

Modeling through June 22 projects the rise of a new strain called LB.1.

A new Bloomberg report reveals that retailer Target is finally cracking down on thieves by lowering the staff intervention threshold from $100 to $50. Target management has complained on earnings calls about ‘shrink’ in recent quarters and surging thefts that have squeezed margins.

People familiar with the new policy say employees will soon be able to intervene and halt criminals from leaving the store with as little as $50 in stolen goods.

The previous threshold was $100. They say the new policy will be enforced this summer.

Target operates nearly 2,000 stores in the US and has warned investors countless times about damaging shrink—inventory loss due to theft, damage, and other factors—which has squeezed profit margins.

In March, Target Executive Vice President Michael Fiddelke said the company lost $500 million more in shrink in 2023 than in 2022.

The company expects shrink to a peak in 2024 as it works with policymakers and various cities to address out-of-control thefts.

Progressive lawmakers in states that ignored law and order only emboldened criminals to pillage retail stores as criminal and social justice reforms backfired. California decriminalizing thefts under $950 has been one of the biggest policy failures.

The National Retail Federation has previously stated that shrink accounted for $112.1 billion in losses in 2022, up from $93.9 billion in 2021. Failed progressive policies have sparked unprecedented levels of theft.

Bloomberg data shows that the number of ‘shrink’ mentions on earnings calls began rising in 3Q22, peaking at nearly 600 in 3Q23, but remains elevated.

In response, retailers have shut down stores in crime-ridden areas and locked up entire aisles of high-value items.

A lawless society, due to failed progressive policies, cannot economically thrive. It’s time for Americans to demand law and order.

Key points from the Kansas Attorney General’s legal report on the case against Pfizer:

1. Pfizer misled the public.

• In May 2021, Pfizer advertised to Kansans on Facebook about its “life-saving vaccines” and its “cures.” Upon information and belief, Pfizer intended for Kansans to think of its COVID-19 vaccine when it discussed “life-saving vaccines” and “cures.” Pfizer ran three different ads between May 4, 2021 and June 1, 2021 that received 165,000 to 190,000 impressions.”
• Pfizer received emergency use authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine in individuals 16 years of age and older on December 11, 2020.
• Pfizer received FDA approval on August 23, 2021. From 2021 to 2023, Pfizer received emergency use authorizations in children from six months to 15 years of age.

2. Pfizer used confidentiality agreements to conceal critical data relating to the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine.

• Pfizer effectively had a veto over the federal government’s communications.

3. Pfizer used its confidentiality agreements with the US government and others to conceal, suppress, and omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, including the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

4. Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data – the study was repeatedly delayed.

• Pfizer planned to provide researchers with access to patient-level data and full clinical study reports 24 months after study completion. Protocol C4591001
• Pfizer estimated that it would complete the study by January 27, 2023, but that estimated date fell back to February 2024 because of a late vaccination of a single study participant (out of 44,000 participants).
• Pfizer’s control of the data allowed the company to selectively publish results for which the underlying data could not be independently evaluated.

5. Pfizer says it will make data from vaccine trials approved in the US available 18 months after the primary study completion date. Pfizer, Data Access Requests.

• Upon information and belief, Pfizer has still not made its complete study data available to researchers.

6. The FDA did not make the safety and effectiveness data for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine immediately available.

• The FDA denied expedited processing of PHMPTA’s FOIA request and claimed in litigation that it would take 55 years—until 2076
• In January 2022, a federal judge rejected the FDA’s proposed production of 500 pages per month and ordered the FDA to instead produce 55,000 pages per month

7. Pfizer destroyed the vaccine control group.

• Pfizer planned to follow COVID-19 vaccine study participants, both vaccine and placebo recipients for 24 months to monitor the safety and effectiveness of its vaccine.
• Once the FDA approved Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine through an emergency use authorization in December 2020, Pfizer unblinded the study participants and offered vaccine placebo recipients the option to receive the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine
• Only 1,544 placebo participants had not received the vaccine as of March 13, 2021, just 7% of the original placebo group.

8. In its press release announcing emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer did not disclose that it had excluded immunocompromised individuals from its COVID-19 vaccine trials.

• Instead, in “Important Safety Information” in its press release, Pfizer noted that
• “[i]mmunocompromised persons, including individuals receiving immunosuppressant therapy, may have a diminished immune response to the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”

9. Pfizer knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis.

• Pfizer maintained its own adverse events database that “contain[ed] cases of [adverse events (AEs)] reported spontaneously to Pfizer, cases reported by the health authorities, cases published in the medical literature, cases from Pfizer-sponsored marketing programs, non-interventional studies, and cases of serious AEs reported from clinical studies regardless of causality assessment.”
• Upon information and belief, Pfizer’s adverse events database contained more adverse event data than VAERS because it included both information in VAERS and information not in VAERS.

10. The United States military detected a safety signal for myocarditis.

• In early 2021, the U.S. military noticed cases of myocarditis in male military members occurring within four days of administration of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. When the Department of Defense reviewed its health system data for 2021, it found that “[t]hose who were recently vaccinated had a rate ratio that showed their incidences of myocarditis and pericarditis were 2.6 and 2.0 times higher compared to those who were never vaccinated.”
• On March 3, 2021, Israel’s Ministry of Health contacted the CDC about myocarditis and pericarditis connected to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine: “We are seeing a large number of myocarditis and pericarditis cases in young individuals soon after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. We would like to discuss the issue with a relevant expert at CDC.”
• Upon information and belief, Pfizer had knowledge of the medical reports in Israel related to its vaccine and myocarditis and pericarditis because Israel agreed to share medical data with Pfizer.
• At the time of Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla’s January 18, 2023 denial of any safety signals, the CDC’s website reported that “[d]ata from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines
• According to a leaked confidential February 2022 Pfizer document, “[s]ince April 2021, increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported in the United States after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), particularly in adolescents and young adults (CDC 2021).”

11. After Pfizer obtained FDA approval through emergency use authorization to provide its COVID-19 vaccine to 12-15-year-olds in August 2021, Pfizer decided to study “how often” its vaccine may cause myocarditis or pericarditis in children by testing 5-16-year-olds for troponin I.

• Pfizer warned children participants that after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine,“[y]ou might get chest pain, shortness of breath, or feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering or pounding heart. You may need to come in to see the study doctor for further assessments if you have these symptoms.”
• Pfizer press releases did not disclose an increased risk of myocarditis from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine until November 2021. Posts falsely claim Pfizer ‘officially admits’ heart inflammation is COVID jab side effect in 2023,
• Upon information and belief, at the time of Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla’s January 2023 representation that Pfizer had not observed a single safety signal related to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer was aware of a safety signal relating to myocarditis and pericarditis.

12. Upon information and belief, Pfizer also detected a safety signal relating to strokes.

• Days before Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla denied any safety signal, the CDC’s and FDA’s “surveillance system flagged a possible link between the new Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and strokes in people aged 65 and over, . .
• Although CDC later suggested a link was “very unlikely,” a FDA study found that individuals 85 years or older who received both a flu vaccine and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine“saw a 20 percent increase in the risk of ischemic stroke.”

13. Pfizer’s knowledge of a safety signal for increased fatalities

• Upon information and belief, Pfizer also detected a safety signal relating to deaths. As of February 28, 2021, Pfizer’s adverse events database contained 1,223 fatalities after taking Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

14. Pfizer only tested the booster shot on 12 trial participants who were in the 65- to 85-year-old age range.

• Pfizer should not have represented that the booster was “safe” for 65- to 85-year-olds after only testing 12 trial participants in that age range.

15. Pfizer did not test the booster on any participant older than 85 years old.

• Pfizer should not have represented that the booster was “safe” for individuals 85 years old and older when it had not tested any trial participants in that age range.

16. Pfizer did not publicly release adverse event data from its database.

• As of February 28, 2021, Pfizer’s adverse events database contained 158,893 adverse events (from 42,086 case reports) from its COVID-19 vaccine.
• As of February 28, 2021, Pfizer’s database contained 1,223 fatalities after taking Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, although Pfizer did not make causality findings.
• Pfizer was receiving so many adverse events reports that it had to hire 600 additional full-time staff and expected to hire more than 1,800 additional resources by June 2021
• Pfizer had such a backlog of adverse events that it might take 90 days to code “nonserious cases.” Pfizer did not know “the magnitude of underreporting

17. Pfizer announces study on pregnant women but omits material facts already in its possession.

• More than 1-in-10 women (52) who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during their pregnancy reported a miscarriage, many within days of vaccination.
• Six women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during their pregnancy reported premature deliveries; several babies died.

18. Pfizer’s February 18, 2021, press release also did not disclose other adverse effects on the reproductive systems of women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

• For example, by April 2022, Pfizer knew of tens of thousands of adverse events connected to its COVID-19 vaccine including heavy menstrual bleeding (27,685); menstrual disorders (22,145); irregular periods (15,083); delayed periods (13,989); absence of periods(11,363); and other reproductive system effects.

19. Pfizer’s study on pregnant women failed and the results are secret.

• Pfizer sought to study approximately 4,000 healthy pregnant women. Pfizer and BioNTech Commence Global Clinical Trial to Evaluate COVID-19 Vaccine in Pregnant Women, Feb. 18, 2021. However, Pfizer only enrolled a fraction of this amount (683) in its study.
• Upon information and belief, Pfizer destroyed the placebo control group during the study, preventing Pfizer from evaluating differences in safety and efficacy between vaccinated pregnant women and unvaccinated pregnant women.
• Although Pfizer completed its study of its COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant women on July 15, 2022, it still has not completed the quality control review process for the study.

20. Pfizer concealed critical safety information from the public

• Pfizer only tested its COVID-19 vaccine on healthy individuals. Pfizer’s representations that its COVID-19 vaccine did not have any safety concerns failed to disclose the material facts that it had only been tested on healthy individuals.

21. Pfizer claimed that a “primary endpoint” of the trial of its COVID-19 vaccine was “prevention of COVID-19 regardless of whether participants have previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2.

• Pfizer’s statement was misleading since it had excluded any individual who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 from its vaccine trial.

22. Pfizer misrepresented and concealed material facts relating to the durability of protection provided by its COVID-19 vaccine.

• In November 2020, Pfizer announced, “[p]rimary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose.”
• Pfizer did not report the absolute risk reduction of its COVID-19 vaccine, which was just 0.84%. On February 25, 2021, when asked in an interview how long Pfizer’s COVID-19 two-dose vaccine provided protection, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla stated, “at six months, the protection is robust.”
• On April 1, 2021, Pfizer issued a press release that celebrated “high efficacy” in

23. Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine through up to six months after the second dose. Pfizer and BioNTech Confirm High Efficacy and No Serious Safety Concerns Through Up to Six Months Following Second Dose in Updated Topline Analysis of Landmark COVID-19 Vaccine Study, Pfizer, Apr. 1.

• Pfizer represented that “[a]nalysis of 927 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 demonstrates BNT162b2 is highly effective with 91.3% vaccine efficacy observed against COVID-19, measured seven days through up to six months after the second dose.”
• Pfizer cited data in its press release that also appears in a Pfizer efficacy summary document.
• In its efficacy summary document, Pfizer reported an 83.7% efficacy rate four months after the second dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. Id. at 68.
• In its efficacy summary document, Pfizer reported blood sample data showing effectiveness continued to wane at six months.

24. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission even though it knew it had never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission

• When the FDA issued the Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020, the FDA reported that there was no “evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.” FDA
• According to Pfizer’s trial protocol, evaluating transmission was not an objective of the trial.

25. Despite admissions by Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla and Board Member Dr. Scott Gottlieb that Pfizer did not know if its vaccine prevented transmission, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla warned Kansans on multiple occasions that not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine would affect the lives of those around them, thus implying that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine prevented transmission.

• “I repeat once more, that this choice not to vaccinate will not affect only your health or your life. Unfortunately, it will affect the lives of others and likely the lives of the people you love the most, who are the people that usually you are in contact with.” Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla CNBC (Dec. 14, 2020).
• “What I would say to people who fear the vaccine is that they need to recognize that the decision to take it or not will not affect only their own lives. It will affect the lives of others. And most likely it will affect the lives of people that they love the most, who are the people that they socialize the most with.” John Micklethwait, Pfizer CEO BLOOMBERG, Jan. 28, 2021.
• June 2021: “I try to explain to them that the decision to vaccinate or not is not only going to affect only your life. . . . But unfortunately will affect the health of others and likely will affect the health of people you like and you love the most. . . . When you try to explain that their fear could stand in the way of protecting their loved ones, I think this is the argument that mostly works. CEO ‘ CBS NEWS (June 15, 2021).
• November 2021: “The only thing that stands between the new way of life and the current way of life, frankly, is the hesitancy to get vaccinated, the people that are afraid to get the vaccines, and they create issues not only for them. Unfortunately, they are going to affect the lives of others and, frankly, the lives of the people that they love the most because they are putting at risk the people that they hug, they kiss, [and] they socialize with.” Pfizer’s Albert Bourla
• In December 2021, a Pfizer press release quoted Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla in a manner that again suggested that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine prevented transmission: “Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
• Pfizer Board Member Dr. Scott Gottlieb also represented to Kansans that Pfizer’s COVID-19 prevented transmission: “And final point, I mean, some of the optimism is also being driven by growing science, suggesting that these vaccines, all the vaccines not only prevent COVID disease, prevent symptoms, but also prevent transmission. So they could have a dramatic effect on reducing the overall tenor of the epidemic.” CBS News, Mar. 7, 2021.113
• In 2022, Pfizer partnered with Marvel to produce an “Avengers”-themed comic book that called individuals waiting for a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine “Everyday Heroes.” See Avengers: Everyday Heroes, 2022.

According to one of the characters in the Pfizer comic book, “it’s also important for entire communities to come together and help fight the threat.” “And that’s exactly what we’re doing today!” says another character. As the group heads to the examination room to get their Pfizer COVID-19 vaccinations, the first character announces, “The Avengers are doing their part to help keep us safe. Now it’s time for us to do ours.”

• One of the final pages reinforces the need for individuals to get a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in order to protect the community. “Everyday heroes don’t wear capes! But they do wear a small bandage on their upper arm after they get their latest COVID-19 vaccination—because everyday heroes are concerned about their health. And they’re people who choose to unite with their communities and do their part to help protect against COVID-19.”

26. Pfizer worked to censor speech on social media that questioned Pfizer’s claims.

• Pfizer’s view was that “misinformation spreaders” are “criminals” who have “literally cost millions of lives”
• On July 19, 2021, Pfizer Board Member Dr. Scott Gottlieb claimed social media companies had an “obligation” and an “affirmative responsibility” to prevent the spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on their platforms.
• Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla called people who spread misinformation on COVID-19 vaccines “criminals” who have “literally cost millions of lives.”

27. Pfizer worked to conceal and suppress material facts.

• On August 24, 2021, Pfizer Board Member Dr. Scott Gottlieb contacted Twitter to complain about a column written by Alex Berenson that criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci. “This is whats [sic] promoted on Twitter. This is why Tony needs a security detail,”
• On August 27, 2021, Pfizer Board Member Dr. Scott Gottlieb had a conference call with Twitter employees to discuss Mr. Berenson. Twitter banned Mr. Berenson the next day.
• On Friday, August 27, 2021, Dr. Brett P. Giroir, who served as the assistant secretary for health from 2018 to 2021 and approximately one month as the acting FDA Commissioner in late 2019, posted to Twitter that natural immunity was superior to vaccine immunity. Joseph A. Wulfsohn, Twitter Files: Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb flagged tweets questioning COVID vaccine, FOX NEWS (Jan. 9, 2023).120
• In response, Pfizer Board Member Dr. Scott Gottlieb reached out to Twitter’s top lobbyist in Washington, D.C., to complain that the post was “corrosive,” “draws a sweeping conclusion,” and “will end up going viral and driving news coverage.”
• The Twitter lobbyist forwarded Pfizer Board Member Dr. Scott Gottlieb’s email to the Twitter “Strategic Response” team, which “later slapped [Girori’s tweet] with a ‘misleading’ label and blocked any ability to like or share the tweet.”
• On December 11, 2020, the same day that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine received emergency use authorization from the FDA, a Zoom calendar appointment entitled “Vaccine Disinformation Response” invited personnel at the Department of Health and Human Services, Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and Stanford University to discuss “a coalition to respond to COVID-19 vaccine disinformation.”
• Shortly after the December 11, 2020 meeting, Stanford University co-launched the Virality Project. For at least the next year, Stanford and members of the Virality Project pressured social media companies to conceal and suppress information about Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, including information about safety and efficacy.

Former President Trump took a victory lap on Truth Social Saturday, saying President Biden “choked” during their CNN debate — and was perhaps in a “trance.”

“I watched a man, first hand, ‘CHOKE’ under tremendous pressure, the likes of which he has never seen before,” Trump said in an early morning post.

“This was a ‘MONSTER’ show, and it could be plainly and openly felt onstage.”

During a campaign rally in Raleigh, NC, Friday, Biden spoke with more verve and energy — something many Democrats publicly wished he brought with him to the CNN debate.

In his post, Trump also acknowledged his rival’s recovery, but said it wasn’t enough.

“His speech on Friday was better, and he seems to be coming out of his trance, but AMERICA must ask itself, with all of the many dangers around, do we really want a President who CHOKES? I don’t think so!” Trump said.

In a follow-up post, Trump, never bashful about self-praise, declared that he had “the greatest debate performance in the long and storied history of Presidential Debates.”

Biden has faced widespread calls to drop out of the presidential debate after his drubbing from Trump — something he had so far adamantly refused to do. Biden has been powering through the debacle with a series of fundraisers, including in New York City, New Jersey and the Hamptons this weekend.

Top allies like former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have come out in support of Biden and the possibility of an imminent departure from the race appears increasingly remote.

In a massive decision handed down that will limit the power of unelected agencies in the executive branch to interpret laws that Congress had left ambiguous, and a power Democratic administrations have used to impose additional regulations, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to overturn the 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

“It authorized a massive shift in power from Congress and the courts to the president,” Henry Olsen noted of the Chevron decision. “Most of the administrative agencies subject to Chevron are run by presidential appointments. These officials might have subject matter expertise, but their knowledge does not negate the fact that they make inherently political judgments, which the Constitution envisioned would be made by elected legislators.”

“Under Chevron, a statutory ambiguity, no matter why it is there, becomes a license authorizing an agency to change positions as much as it likes. Chevron accordingly has undermined the very ‘rule of law’ values that stare decisis exists to secure,” Ed Whelan pointed out.

“During Barack Obama’s presidency … courts increasingly relied on Chevron to uphold a slew of new, progressive regulations,” Slate stated in an article titled, “The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents.”

The case in which the Court overturned the 1984 ruling was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The plaintiffs, who are fishermen, sued Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. A subagency of the Commerce Department, the National Marine Fisheries Service, forced the fishermen to “pay the salaries of the federal inspectors that federal law forces them to carry aboard their boats,” the Heritage Foundation explained, adding that the fishermen claimed there was no law that the National Marine Fisheries Service could cite giving them the right to force them to do so.

The National Fisheries Service cited the Chevron decision, saying that the law’s silence gave the agency its right to speak. As a result, inspectors’ salaries ought to be paid by fishermen.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled for the Fisheries Service. But in the petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs asked, “Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.”

“Under the Chevron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to ‘permissible agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer—even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently,” the Supreme Court stated. “In each case below, the reviewing courts applied Chevron’s framework to resolve in favor of the Government challenges by petitioners to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).”

“The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled,” the Court ruled.

“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do. The Framers anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment. Chevron gravely erred in concluding that the inquiry is fundamentally different just because an administrative interpretation is in play. The very point of the traditional tools of statutory construction is to resolve statutory ambiguities. That is no less true when the ambiguity is about the scope of an agency’s own power—perhaps the occasion on which abdication in favor of the agency is least appropriate,” the Court wrote.

“Today’s decision fixes the decades-long error of handing vague and broad powers to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) responded after the decision was released. “The Supreme Court’s decision restores the Constitutional power to write the law to where it should be—with the elected representatives of the American people.”

The mother of Jocelyn Nungaray, the 12-year-old girl who was allegedly brutalized and murdered by two illegal migrants, was “shocked” when former President Donald Trump spoke with her 10 minutes before he took the debate stage Thursday, The Post can reveal.

Alexis Nungaray’s best friend, Victoria Galvan, who was with the grieving mother when the two spoke, told The Post that Trump conveyed that there was no one he would’ve preferred to talk to before the debate than her.

“He was like, ‘I’m actually about to come on for a debate’ … He gave his condolences, and he said that he would be reaching back out to her,” Galvan said.

“He wanted to … say that he was praying for Alexis and that he’s been thinking about her and he wanted to reach out. He said that he was going to reach out in a couple days to her … I mean, she was really … we were all shocked,” Galvan said.

After the call, Galvan said she and Alexis, who has been staying with her, were talking about how little Jocelyn would’ve been in disbelief over the former president’s attention to her story.

Jocelyn was allegedly killed by two illegal migrants from Venezuela who have both been charged with capital murder after they tortured her for two hours and dumped her half-naked body into a bayou.

The two suspects crossed the southern border illegally and were released by federal authorities months before Jocelyn was killed.

Trump mentioned speaking with Jocelyn’s family on the debate stage while highlighting several high-profile crimes committed by illegal migrants released into the country under President Joe Biden.

A desperate Joe Biden has hit back at the New York Times after it told him to drop out of the presidential race following his disastrous debate.

The Times previously jointly endorsed two Democratic presidential candidates Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren in 2020 instead of Biden.

But despite being snubbed by the prestigious broadsheet, Biden would go on to win his party’s nomination and defeat Trump in November 2020.

A senior adviser to the president told CNN: ‘The last time Joe Biden lost the New York Times editorial board’s endorsement, it turned out pretty well for him.’

On Friday the editorial board of the Times wrote Biden ‘is not the man he was four years ago’ and criticized his rationale for running, saying it was a ‘reckless gamble’.

Meanwhile the fallout from the debate has left Democratic donors floating the idea of an ‘intervention’ led by Obama to get the sitting president to see sense after he was widely mocked for his performance against Trump.

There have been discussions with political advisers about arcane rules under which Biden could be removed from the ticket against his will and replaced at or before the Democratic National Convention in August, according to a person familiar with the effort.

But former US president Barack Obama defended Biden in a Twitter post on Friday.

‘Bad debate nights happen,’ he wrote. ‘But this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself.’

With only 131 days before the November election, there are a number of practical complications with removing Biden.

Even if he quit, his vice-president Kamala Harris is so unpopular that it is thought by analysts she would not be able to face a forceful campaign against a vigorous Trump.

In an article on Friday titled ‘To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race’, the New York Times blasted his continued attempts to run as a ‘reckless gamble’ with the country’s future.

They said that the country needed ‘a stronger opponent’ to stand in the way of the ‘significant jeopardy to… democracy’ – a threat characterised by the Republican leader.

In a damning blow, the newspaper’s editorial board said: ‘There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.’

They continued: ‘The clearest path for Democrats to defeat a candidate defined by his lies is to deal truthfully with the American public: acknowledge that Mr. Biden can’t continue his race, and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place to defeat Mr. Trump in November.

‘It is the best chance to protect the soul of the nation — the cause that drew Mr. Biden to run for the presidency in 2019 — from the malign warping of Mr. Trump. And it is the best service that Mr. Biden can provide to a country that he has nobly served for so long.’

The brutal indictment comes despite a defiant Biden insisting last night that he could still win the election – as he refused to pull the plug on his bid for a second term.

Although the New York Times has become the first US newspaper to call on Biden to drop out of the race, other influential publications including the Financial Times and the Atlantic have published articles by their leading columnists calling on Biden to step aside.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board published an article which stated the debate showed the President clearly isn’t up to four more years in office – calling the decision ‘not partisan thought; it’s a patriotic one’.

The Economist, another influential worldwide news provider, previously called on Biden to step down in November 2022 and put the concern on its front page in January.

It has now doubled down on its belief and called for Biden to throw in the towel once again.

Meanwhile a Silicon Valley group of megadonors, including Ron Conway and Laurene Powell Jobs, were calling, texting and emailing one another about a situation they described as a possible catastrophe, according to CNN.

The donors wondered about whom in the Biden fold they could contact to reach Jill Biden, the first lady, who is thought to be able to persuade her husband not to run.

One Silicon Valley donor who had planned to host an intimate fund-raiser featuring Biden this summer has reportedly decided not to go through with the gathering because of the debate calamity.

Another major California donor left a debate watch party early and emailed a friend with the subject line: ‘Utter disaster’.

The crisis in the donor class could not come at a worse moment for Biden as his opponent Trump has outraised him in each of the last two months, erasing the president’s once gaping financial advantage and opening one of his own.

The donor worries come after Biden meandered through the 90-minute CNN spectacle, struggling to finish sentences and losing his train of thought multiple times in front of tens of millions of stunned TV viewers.

CNN, the broadcaster who hosted the debate, said it was viewed by 48 million people on television and millions more online.

The Texas State Supreme Court upheld a law which bans transgender healthcare for minors in an 8-1 ruling on Friday, ensuring that Texas youths are unable to receive hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and sex-change surgeries.

“We conclude the Legislature made a permissible, rational policy choice to limit the types of available medical procedures for children, particularly in light of the relative nascency of both gender dysphoria and its various modes of treatment and the Legislature’s express constitutional authority to regulate the practice of medicine,” Justice Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle wrote in the court’s decision.

Justice Debra Lehrmann, the one dissenter, wrote in her opinion that the law was “cruel” and “unconstitutional” and said that such “treatment could be lifesaving.” Critics of the law claimed that the move to limit minors’ access to transgender care was “devastating.”

“Our government shouldn’t deprive trans youth of the health care that they need to survive and thrive,” Ash Hall, LGBTQIA+ policy advocate at Texas’s American Civil Liberties Union said. “Texas politicians’ obsession with attacking trans kids and their families is needlessly cruel.”

Texas’s ACLU also said that the ruling “placed trans youth, their families, and the medical professionals who care for them in harm’s way.” The law prohibits children under the age of 18 from receiving what activists label “gender-affirming care.” Children who have already started treatment must now be weaned off of medications in a “medically appropriate” way.

The state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton, who this month sued the Biden administration over a federal rule that would require states to subsidize transgender healthcare, praised the court’s decision.

“Today, the Texas Supreme Court upheld SB 14, a law protecting children from dangerous gender confusion procedures by prohibiting puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and mutilative surgeries on minors,” Paxton said on X. “We will always defend children in Texas from these irreversible procedures. My office will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that doctors and medical institutions follow the law.”

Republican Texas governor Greg Abbott signed the bill, which prevents minors from sterilization surgery, into law last year.

“We are the Legislature — our job is to protect people,” state Sen. Bob Hall (R.) said at the time. “We protect children against lots of things. We don’t let them smoke. We don’t let them drink. We don’t let them buy lottery cards. . . . And so we are doing the right thing.”

A suspect armed with a crossbow was shot dead outside the Israeli Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia after he fired a bolt at a police officer, striking the officer in the neck, according to Serbian officials.

A spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs identified the incident as an “attempted terrorist attack,” the Associated Press reported. The embassy was closed at the time of the assault and no embassy employees were injured, the spokesman added.

After the assailant fired a bolt at the officer, the officer then “used a weapon in self-defense to shoot the attacker, who died as a result of his injuries,” according to Serbian Interior Minister Ivica Dacic.

The officer was transported to a local hospital where he will undergo surgery to have the bolt removed from his neck, Dacic said.

While Serbian officials are “still talking about possible motives,” Dacic said, “There are now all indications that the motives relate to terrorism. Because there is no other motive why someone would attack a gendarme outside the Israeli Embassy.”

While police arrested one person near the scene of the shooting, officials are investigating a possible network and ties with foreign terrorist groups and the identity of the attack remained unknown.

“There are indications that those are individuals already known to the security services … the Wahhabi movement,” Dacic said. “But this still has not been confirmed.”

The snap presidential election in Iran is heading into a run-off next week after reformist-backed Masoud Pezeshkian and hardliner Saeed Jalili emerged at the top but failed to secure a majority in a vote with a record-low turnout.

Only 40 percent of more than 61 million eligible Iranians voted, the Ministry of Interior said on Saturday, a new low in presidential elections since the country’s 1979 revolution.

The final numbers from election headquarters at the ministry showed that the moderate Pezeshkian received more than 10.41 million votes from a total of more than 24.5 million ballots counted, trailed by former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili with 9.47 million votes.

This is only the second time since the 1979 revolution that a presidential election has gone to a second round.

Conservative Speaker of the Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, with 3.38 million votes, and conservative Islamic leader Mostafa Pourmohammadi, with 206,397 votes, were knocked out of the race. Two other candidates, Tehran Mayor Alireza Zakani and government official Amir-Hossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi, dropped out.

Ghalibaf, Zakani and Ghazizadeh called on their supporters to vote for Jalili in the run-off next Friday in order to ensure victory for the “revolution front”.

The snap election on Friday came within the 50-day constitutionally mandated period to select a new president after Ebrahim Raisi and seven others, including Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, died in a helicopter crash on May 19.

Like all major elections in the past four years, the vote on Friday saw a low turnout, but the final number was much lower than the 45-53 percent suggested by polls.

The lowest presidential turnout in the more than four-decade history of the Islamic republic was the one that got Raisi into office, with 48.8 percent. At just below 41 percent, the parliamentary election in March and May previously had the lowest turnout of any major polls since Iran’s 1979 revolution.

The voter apathy comes as many are disillusioned in the aftermath of deadly nationwide protests in 2022-23, and as the economy continues to deal with myriad challenges including more than 40 percent inflation due to mismanagement and United States sanctions.

Hamid Reza Gholamzadeh, an Iranian foreign policy expert, attributed the low turnout to what he said was the reformist camp’s failure to activate the sector of the electorate which usually votes for it and drives participation up.

Despite the endorsement of heavyweight reformists such as former President Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani, Pezeshkian “failed to awaken that part of the society which is usually when we have a turnout above 50 percent – that usually comes from the reformist side”, Gholamzadeh told Al Jazeera.

“And I would interpret that as people saying they want change,” Gholamzadeh added.

A higher turnout appears likely when Iranians vote in the July 5 run-off since it would present a clearer choice between two opposing camps. That would mostly benefit Pezeshkian, who would need more votes to defeat the combined forces of the conservative and hardliner camps.

Pezeshkian, a prominent politician and former health minister, is backed by former centrist and reformist presidents and other top figures. He has promised to lift sanctions by restoring the country’s comatose 2015 nuclear deal with world powers and to bridge the widening gap between the people and the establishment.

Jalili, a senior member of the Supreme National Security Council, has promised to bring inflation down to single digits and boost economic growth to a whopping 8 percent, along with fighting corruption and mismanagement. He advocates a harsher stance against the West and its allies.

Pezeshkian was the only moderate of six people approved to run by the Guardian Council, the constitutional body that vets all candidates.

His backers have presented him not as a miracle worker, but as a prospective president who could make things slightly better while claiming a victory for Jalili would signal a major backslide.

Jalili’s name is tied with years-long nuclear negotiations in the late 2000s and early 2010s that ultimately led to Iran’s isolation on the global stage and the imposition of United Nations Security Council sanctions.

The hardline politician, who has been trying to become president for more than a decade, blames the camp backing Pezeshkian for compromising the country’s nuclear programme as part of the landmark accord signed in 2015, which then US President Donald Trump reneged on in 2018.

Accusing his opponent of inefficiency, Jalili and other conservatives have claimed a Pezeshkian victory would only mark a third administration of former centrist President Hassan Rouhani.

Two security forces were killed in an attack targeting their vehicle that was carrying ballot boxes in southern Sistan-Baluchestan province after voting concluded. According to state media, armed attackers targeted the car that was returning the boxes to the local governor.

The New York Times editorial board called on President Biden to step aside as the presumptive Democratic nominee in the 2024 presidential race Friday, one day after his abysmal performance in a debate against Donald Trump.

While insisting that Biden, 81, had been an “admirable president,” the liberal Grey Lady concluded the incumbent appeared on the debate stage as “the shadow of a great public servant” and would be engaging in a “reckless gamble” by continuing his candidacy.

“There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden,” the board wrote. “It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.”

“Mr. Biden answered an urgent question on Thursday night. It was not the answer that he and his supporters were hoping for,” the Times concluded. “But if the risk of a second Trump term is as great as he says it is — and we agree with him that the danger is enormous — then his dedication to this country leaves him and his party only one choice.”

The editorial was published two hours after Biden arrived in New York City for the first of a two-day fundraising swing, which will include a high-dollar event in the Hamptons on Saturday.

It followed a day of chaos and confusion among Democrats after Biden repeatedly froze, misspoke and lost his train of thought during the first of two scheduled debates against his predecessor in Atlanta.

At one point, Biden gazed down at his lectern for nearly 10 whole seconds before popping up again to say that he “finally beat Medicare.”

The Times editorial board noted that Biden had “challenged Mr. Trump to this verbal duel. He set the rules, and he insisted on a date months earlier than any previous general election debate. He understood that he needed to address longstanding public concerns about his mental acuity and that he needed to do so as soon as possible.”The truth Mr. Biden needs to confront now is that he failed his own test.”

Even before the Times editorial board weighed in, two of the paper’s most prominent columnists had called on Biden to step aside. “The Democratic Party has some prominent figures who I think would be in a good position to defeat Trump in November,” Nicholas Kristoff wrote late Thursday following the debate. “This will be a wrenching choice.”

“But, Mr. President, one way you can serve your country in 2024 is by announcing your retirement and calling on delegates to replace you,” he said, “for that is the safest course for our nation.”

Thomas Friedman, who called Biden “my friend” said that watching the debate “made me weep” and acknowledged that “Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election.”

Two workers were allegedly shot and killed by an illegal migrant at a Texas Chick-fil-A on Wednesday — in the latest disturbing incident believed to have been committed by an asylum seeker.

Oved Bernardo Mendoza Argueta, a 37-year-old native of El Salvador, was arrested and charged with capital murder after he opened fire in the fast-food joint in Irving around 3:40 p.m., according to police.

Two people, one identified as Patricia Portillo, died at the scene from gunshot wounds. The other victim’s identity is being withheld pending family notification, a police spokesperson told The Post.

He fled the scene in a silver 1997 Honda sedan but was tracked down and taken into custody around 2:50 a.m. Thursday morning.

Irving police confirmed he had an “ICE hold.”

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson told The Post that the agency’s Enforcement and Removal Operations in Dallas “lodged an immigration detainer with the Irving Police Department on Mendoza.”

ICE issues such holds for noncitizens who have been apprehended by local or state police to indicate ICE intends to take them into custody, according to the agency.

It’s not immediately clear where and when Mendoza entered the US.

“Our hearts are broken by the tragedy that unfolded inside our restaurant Wednesday. We will miss our two Team Members dearly,” Chick-fil-A said in a statement. “Right now, our focus is on providing care for our Team and the victims’ families.

“I want to thank the Irving Police Department for their professionalism and compassion. We will continue working closely with them as they conduct their investigation.”

The double homicide comes just days after 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray was allegedly brutalized and murdered by two illegal migrants from Venezuela in Houston.

Franklin Jose Pena Ramos, 26, and Johan Jose Rangel Martinez, 21, allegedly lured Jocelyn under a bridge, stripped her naked to the waist and assaulted her for two hours, according to court documents.

The men, who had been in the US only a few months, tied her hands behind her back during the assault, then strangled her and dumped her body in a bayou, prosecutors said. Both have been charged with capital murder.

Earlier this month, a 13-year-old girl was raped in a New York City park in broad daylight by an illegal migrant from Ecuador.

Christian Geovanny Inga-Landi, 25, held a girl and boy, both 13, at knifepoint in a secluded section of Kissena Park had their hands tied with shoelaces, police said.

The fiend raped the girl — and filmed it — before running off with the kids’ phones, cops said.

A flood of tips from local community members and good Samaritans who dramatically subdued the suspect led to his arrest days later.

Four people were killed and 10 others seriously injured when a driver plowed into a Long Island nail salon Friday, police and law enforcement sources said.

The minivan smashed through the Hawaii Nail & Spa storefront at 794 Grand Boulevard in Deer Park just after 4:30 p.m. — trapping customers and employees inside, according to cops and a report.

The vehicle came to rest towards the back of the salon, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake, photos show.

The entire glass storefront had been shattered and the ceiling was ripped down in the crash.

“There were people trapped and we extricated them and transported everyone to area hospitals,” Deer Park Third Assistant Chief Dominic Albanese told Newsday. “They were trapped inside. Everybody was inside the salon.”

“It’s horrible. It’s horrible. It can be tough for the community and tougher for the volunteer fire department, but you know we’re going to get through it,” Albanese added.

The nail salon is located in a strip mall on Grand Boulevard near Commack Road that includes a liquor store and a tattoo parlor.

More than 150 firefighters and EMS workers responded to what the Deer Park Fire Department called a “mass casualty event.”

Four people were pronounced dead at the scene, fire officials said. They were all believed to be inside the salon.

Ten others were taken to area hospitals for serious injuries, including one who was airlifted to the hospital, according to fire officials.

The driver of the van is believed to be one of the survivors.

Records show that the van had never received a traffic violation.

The cause of the crash are still under investigation.

Obama

Former President Barack Obama on Friday rushed to President Joe Biden’s rescue following a lackluster debate performance, one that sent many Democrats into a spiral of panic, the former president asserting that “bad debate nights happen.”

“Bad debate nights happen. Trust me, I know,” Obama said in a statement shared to social media, urging Americans to look beyond Biden’s dismal debate performance.

“But this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself,” Obama claimed.

“Between someone who tells the truth; who knows right from wrong and will give it to the American people straight — and someone who lies through his teeth for his own benefit,” Obama said, concluding that “Last night didn’t change that, and it’s why so much is at stake in November.”

He then shared a link to Biden’s campaign website:

Bad debate nights happen. Trust me, I know. But this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself. Between someone who tells the truth; who knows right from wrong and will give it to the…

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) June 28, 2024

Obama’s plea for Americans to look beyond Biden’s debate performance follows hours upon hours of panic from Democrats after Biden’s debate performance, which featured the 81-year-old looking confused at times, suffering freezes, and attempting to resurrect Democrat talking points — from the “very fine people” hoax to the “suckers and losers” fabrication. When he was not doing that, he repeated the phrase “the idea” 27 times.

Obama’s statement also comes after the former president made waves for leading Biden off the stage at a star-studded fundraiser in June:

Biden freezes before Obama grabs his arm and leads him off stage. Yikes! 😳 pic.twitter.com/nCgAGitoQ6

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 16, 2024

Clinton

Former President Bill Clinton defended President Joe Biden after his performance at the presidential debate on Thursday night against former President Donald Trump.

In a post on X, Clinton highlighted how Biden had “given us 3 years of solid leadership,” and created a “record number of new jobs,” and was “making real progress solving the climate crisis,” among other things.

“I’ll leave the debate rating to the pundits, but here’s what I know: fact and history matter,” Clinton wrote. “Joe Biden has given us 3 years of solid leadership, steadying us after the pandemic, creating a record number of new jobs, making real progress solving the climate crisis, and launching a successful effort in reducing inflation, all while pulling us out of the quagmire Donald Trump left us in. That’s what’s really at stake in November.”

I’ll leave the debate rating to the pundits, but here’s what I know: facts and history matter. Joe Biden has given us 3 years of solid leadership, steadying us after the pandemic, creating a record number of new jobs, making real progress solving the climate crisis, and launching…

— Bill Clinton (@BillClinton) June 28, 2024

Immediately after the debate, the CNN panel went into panic mode over Biden’s debate performance:

“Anderson, this was a game-changing debate in the sense that right now as we speak, there is a deep, a wide, and a very aggressive panic in the Democratic Party,” CNN host John King said after the debate:

It started minutes into the debate and it continues right now. It involves party strategists; it involves elected officials; it involves fundraisers. And they’re having conversations about the president’s performance, which they think was dismal, which they think will hurt other people down the party in the ticket. And they’re having conversations about what they should do about it.

CNN political commentator Van Jones also admitted, “That was painful. I love Joe Biden. I worked for Joe Biden. He didn’t do well at all. He did not do well at all.”

Despite some floating the idea of replacing Biden and donors backing down, a Biden campaign spokesperson said Biden is not dropping out. He reportedly plans to participate in a second debate in September.

Meanwhile, Republicans are also casting doubt on the possibility of Democrats replacing Biden.

“The Democrats don’t have the option of replacing Joe Biden,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) told Breitbart News Daily after the debate.

“There’s not a vehicle for them to do that. Their rules are very onerous for their convention and their structure, and Jason Miller did a good job of weighing that out last night. And what we know is that it is going to be their ticket is set,” the senator said. “So it is going to be a Biden-Harris ticket.”

Republican National Committee (RNC) chair Michael Whatley tends to agree, telling Breitbart News Daily, “Those delegates that have voted for him in all of the primaries — and we have completely finished the primary process across the country — are bound to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.”

“All of the money that they have raised, the hundreds of millions of dollars that they’ve raised, was raised for the Biden-Harris campaign. So it is absolutely not a given that they’re going to be able to switch this out, and they certainly are not going to do it if Jill Biden doesn’t allow Joe Biden to step down,” Whatley added.