Biden Handlers Were Woke-Resistant Moderates
False Assumption: Biden's senior advisors were seasoned moderate Democrats who would not push extreme leftwing policies on transgenderism, immigration, crime, and equity.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
Biden took office in 2021 with a tight inner circle of loyal advisors dubbed The Politburo: Donilon, Ricchetti, Klain, Reed, and Bernal. These were boring mainstream Democratic lifers picked for loyalty by Joe and Jill Biden. Observers expected moderation from them.
Instead, they drove controversial policies on transgenderism, open immigration, response to George Floyd riots, and equity initiatives. These choices baffled insiders and outsiders alike, with little tick-tock reporting on decision-making. Critics noted muddled immigration policy, as Bennet speculated Biden's age left Democrats directionless on borders.
By 2025, these policies look crazy in hindsight. The Great Awokening zeitgeist had gripped even moderates through younger staff. Ignorance of facts like autogynephilia, BLM's homicide spike, racial gaps in violence and IQ, and immigration costs fueled the push. Election losses and diverse voters liking Trump exposed the disconnect.
People Involved
- In the Biden White House, a tight group of advisors formed what they called the Politburo.
- Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Ron Klain, Bruce Reed, and Anthony Bernal led this inner circle. These men were seasoned moderate Democrats, chosen for their loyalty. Yet they pushed policies on transgenderism, immigration, crime, and equity that leaned far left. [1]
- Senator Michael Bennet later suggested Biden's age muddled immigration decisions. He pointed to party disagreements and a lack of strong direction from the top. [1]
- Commentator Matthew Yglesias, a moderate voice, puzzled over this after reading a book by Jonathan Tapper and Alexander Thompson. He wondered why these supposedly level-headed advisors chose such controversial paths. [1] Growing evidence suggests these moderates were not as resistant to woke influences as assumed, though the full picture remains debated.
▶ Supporting Quotes (3)
“Tapper and Thompson describe decisions in the Biden White House as dominated by a small group of senior advisors — Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Ron Klain, Bruce Reed, and Anthony Bernal (Jill Biden’s chief of staff) — that they dub The Politburo.”— Yglesias: Why did Biden's handlers go nuts?
“Michael Bennet recounts seeing Biden flub the name of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas at an immigration debate, and he reflects that maybe Biden’s age explains why the administration’s actual immigration policy is so muddled and murky.”— Yglesias: Why did Biden's handlers go nuts?
“What we don't learn in "Original Sin" Who was driving the Biden administration's controversial policy choices?”— Yglesias: Why did Biden's handlers go nuts?
Organizations Involved
The Biden White House operated through its inner Politburo. This group dominated key decisions. Despite their moderate backgrounds, they advanced leftwing policies. [1] The administration's structure allowed this small circle to steer the ship. Institutional habits kept them in power. Increasingly, observers see this setup as flawed, with the Politburo bending to broader pressures rather than holding a moderate line. [1] The debate continues on how much the organization's incentives fueled these shifts.
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“they say that this inner circle group was called The Politburo inside the administration.”— Yglesias: Why did Biden's handlers go nuts?
The Foundation
The assumption took root because Biden's advisors seemed like pragmatic moderates. They appeared unlikely to embrace extreme views. But growing evidence suggests they overlooked key realities. They treated transgender policies as straightforward, unaware of concepts like autogynephilia. [1] They viewed Black Lives Matter as broadly positive, missing its links to rising black murder rates and car crash deaths. [1] They downplayed racial gaps in shootings and IQ, along with immigration's downsides from Third World countries. [1] This blind spot made the assumption seem credible at first. Over time, it has come to look increasingly flawed, though not everyone agrees the foundation was entirely misguided.
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“A central problem was that Biden’s inner circle were, like all respectable people, just plain ignorant about the relevant facts. How many of them had ever heard of autogynephilia? How many of them knew that the Black Lives Matter fad had twice driven up the black death rates from murder and car crashes? How many of them knew how big were the racial gaps in shootings and IQ?”— Yglesias: Why did Biden's handlers go nuts?
How It Spread
The idea spread during the Great Awokening. Younger advisors carried its spirit into the White House. They influenced the moderate inner circle. [1] This zeitgeist pushed the group toward extreme policies. Media and academic circles amplified the mood. Social pressures discouraged pushback. [1] Dissenters faced quiet punishment. Funding incentives in Democratic networks sustained the trend. Growing recognition points to this propagation as a key flaw in the assumption, even as the extent of its influence remains under discussion. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Biden’s dull old moderate Democrat advisers were influenced by the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, as embodied in their younger advisers, to push policies that would seem nuts in either 2011 or 2025.”— Yglesias: Why did Biden's handlers go nuts?
Resulting Policies
The Biden administration rolled out policies on transgenderism that favored broad changes. Immigration rules loosened, allowing larger inflows. [1] After George Floyd's death, crime policies turned lenient. Equity initiatives prioritized racial considerations. [1] By 2025, these moves looked extreme in hindsight. Growing evidence suggests they strayed from moderate roots, challenging the initial assumption. [1] The policies took shape in Washington boardrooms and executive orders, often without broad debate. The full reckoning is still emerging.
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“So why did the Biden Administration push what, from the perspective of 2025, seem like crazy leftwing policies on transgenderism, immigration, crime, and “equity?"”— Yglesias: Why did Biden's handlers go nuts?
Harm Caused
The Black Lives Matter movement, boosted by administration tolerance, led to higher black death rates. Murders doubled, as did fatal car crashes. [1] These outcomes tied to lenient crime policies under Biden. Lives were lost in cities across the country. The toll mounted from 2020 onward. [1] Increasingly, this harm is seen as evidence against the assumption of moderate restraint. Yet the connection remains a point of contention among experts. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“How many of them knew that the Black Lives Matter fad had twice driven up the black death rates from murder and car crashes?”— Yglesias: Why did Biden's handlers go nuts?
Downfall
By 2025, the policies seemed out of step with a changed world. The Great Awokening had faded. October 7 events created wedges with donors. [1] Diverse voters shifted toward Trump and away from Democrats. [1] This backdrop exposed the assumption's weaknesses. Growing evidence suggests the moderate image was overstated, with advisors succumbing to leftwing pulls. [1] The shift happened gradually, through election results and public backlash. The debate over the downfall persists, but recognition of the flaw is building.
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Because it wasn’t 2025 then. It was still the Great Awokening. ... One reason is October 7, 2023, which drove a wedge between the Democrats’ woke activists and their richest and most influential constituency Another is the election results. ... the Diverse have the bad taste to kind of like Trump”— Yglesias: Why did Biden's handlers go nuts?
Sources
- [1]