International
Dem Megadonors Wanted To Hold Intervention, Convince Biden To Step Down After Debate Implosion

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By WILL KESSLER
Democratic megadonors discussed holding an intervention to convince President Joe Biden to step down as the party’s nominee after Thursday night’s poor debate performance, The New York Times reported Saturday.
Many have criticized Biden’s performance at the first presidential debate against former President Donald Trump as poor, with the president appearing to freeze at several points, was often hard to understand and made multiple verbal gaffes. Following the dismal performance, some major Democratic donors spoke of setting up an intervention for the president to convince him to step down from the race, while others hoped Biden would decide to exit on his own after seeing the widespread negative reaction, according to the NYT.
“He deserves the opportunity to reflect and say: ‘I still think I can do this. I still think I am the best choice,’” Democratic donor and friend of the president, Stephen Cozen, told the NYT about what he said to other donors calling for an intervention. “That’s his decision. And I will stick with him until he makes it.”
Ron Conway and Laurene Powell Jobs, members of a group of Silicon Valley megadonors, were racing to talk to other donors about what they described as a “possible catastrophe” after the debate, according to the NYT. A possible solution the donors came up with was finding a way to contact First Lady Jill Biden to convince the president to step down from the ticket.
Dems' Favorite Fundraising Platform Enabling Donations To Nonprofit Linked To Palestinian Terror Org https://t.co/JR2I7E8zi9
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 29, 2024
One of those Silicon Valley donors canceled plans to host a fundraiser featuring Biden later this summer, according to the NYT. Despite the concern of losing momentum in receiving donations, the Biden campaign claimed that they had raised $14 million from online sources following the debate into Friday morning.
Biden’s campaign has been struggling to fundraise at the same rate as the Trump campaign over the past few months, despite starting with a $100 million advantage, according to the NYT. The Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee had $212 million at the start of June, while the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee had $235 million.
Among the donors critical of the president following the debate, there was talk about which figure could possibly convince the president to step aside, such as former President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer, according to the NYT. The donors also speculated who could possibly replace the president as the nominee, with Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and California Gov. Gavin Newsom among the options.
Despite being a front-runner as a possible replacement for Biden, Newsom has made repeated statements expressing his support for the president and pledging not to run in the 2024 presidential election.
Biden’s mental acuity has long been questioned by opponents, due in part to being the oldest president in American history, with a second term taking him well into his 80s. Several prominent Democrats who previously defended Biden’s mental acuity were notably quiet following the debate after seeing the president’s performance.
An investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents by special counsel Robert Hur concluded that the president shouldn’t be charged because he appeared as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request to comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
conflict
Inspired by Ukraine, Armed by the U.S., Reinvented by Tech: Taiwan’s New Way of War

Sam Cooper
HIMARS Test Marks Taiwan’s Move to Jungle-Hardened, Tech-Backed Defense Doctrine
The HIMARS roar that echoed off the coastal mountains of southern Taiwan this week was more than a weapons test. It was a declaration of deterrence.
From their perch at Jiupeng military base—where steep green ridges descend toward the Pacific—Taiwanese forces fired the U.S.-made rocket artillery system in a live-fire display designed to show how the island is transforming itself into a fortress of modern asymmetric warfare. The Taiwanese unit conducting the test had trained with U.S. forces in Oklahoma in 2024, and this week’s exercise marked the first time they demonstrated their proficiency with HIMARS on home soil.
The HIMARS platform—demonstrated in footage provided to The Bureau from Taiwan Plus—signals a decisive shift toward a mobile, nimble defensive force designed to face overwhelming scale. Unlike fixed missile sites or air bases—prime targets expected to be destroyed within hours of a PLA first-wave assault—truck-mounted HIMARS units can slip into position, launch a strike, and quickly vanish into Taiwan’s jungle-thick terrain and cliffside roads. These launchers are meant to hide, hit, and move—relying on camouflage, speed, and the natural topography of the island to stay alive and strike again.
This transformation had been quietly underway for years. In September 2023, The Bureau met with Taiwanese military strategists and international journalists at a closed-door roundtable in Taipei. Among them was a Ukrainian defense consultant—invited to share hard-won battlefield lessons from Kyiv’s resistance. The strategist told the group that the most crucial lesson for Taiwan was psychological: to instill in citizens and soldiers alike the will to prepare for aggression that seems impossible and illogical, before it arrives. “You must believe the worst can happen,” the Ukraine vet said.
That same week in Taipei, Taiwan’s then-Foreign Minister Joseph Wu made the case directly in an interview:
“There’s a growing consensus among the key analysts in the United States and also in Taiwan that war is not inevitable and the war is not imminent,” Wu said. “And we have been making significant investment in our own defense—not just increasing our military budget, but also engaging serious military reforms, in the sense of asymmetric strategy and asymmetric capability.”
That principle now guides Taiwan’s evolving force posture. The May 12 HIMARS test—launching precision-guided rockets into a Pacific exclusion zone—was the first public demonstration of the mobile artillery system since the U.S. delivered the first batch in late 2024. With a range of 300 kilometers, HIMARS provides not only mobility but standoff power, allowing Taiwan’s forces to strike amphibious staging areas, beachheads, and ships from hardened inland positions. Lockheed Martin engineers observed the drills, which were broadcast across Taiwanese news networks as both a military signal and psychological campaign.
The live-fire exercise also marked the debut of the Land Sword II, a domestically developed surface-to-air missile system designed to counter diverse aerial threats, including cruise missiles, aircraft, and drones. Land Sword II adds a mobile, all-weather air defense layer to Taiwan’s increasingly dense multi-domain network. By deploying it alongside HIMARS, Taiwan demonstrated its commitment to building overlapping shields—striking at invading forces while protecting its launch platforms from aerial suppression.
But these new missile systems are only the tip of the spear.
Taiwan’s military has quietly abandoned the vestiges of a Cold War posture centered on fleet battles and long-range missile parity with the mainland. Defense officials now concede that attempts to match Beijing plane-for-plane or ship-for-ship are a dead end. Instead, inspired by the “porcupine” concept outlined by retired U.S. Marines and intelligence officials, Taiwan is remaking itself into a smart, lethal archipelago fortress—one where unmanned drones, dispersed missile cells, and underground fiber-linked command posts neutralize China’s numerical advantage.
Wu, who now serves as Secretary-General of Taiwan’s National Security Council, has been one of the doctrine’s most consistent advocates. In his writings and interviews, Wu points to Ukraine’s ability to hold off a vastly superior invader through mobility, deception, and smart munitions. “We are not seeking parity. We are seeking survivability,” he wrote in Foreign Affairs. “And if we survive, we win.”
A New Arsenal of Ideas: From Silicon Valley to the Taiwan Strait
If Ukraine showed the value of agile, off-the-shelf technologies on the battlefield, Taiwan seems poised to go a step further—by integrating cutting-edge systems developed not by defense contractors, but by Silicon Valley insurgents.
Among the most closely watched innovators is Palmer Luckey, the former Oculus founder whose defense firm, Anduril Industries, is quietly revolutionizing battlefield autonomy. Through its Dive Technologies division and flagship Ghost and Bolt drone platforms, Anduril builds AI-guided aerial and underwater drones capable of swarming enemy ships, submarines, and even mines—exactly the kinds of systems Taiwan could deploy along its maritime approaches and chokepoints.
Luckey, who visited Japan and South Korea in early 2025 to brief U.S. allies on asymmetric AI warfare, has warned that in a Taiwan invasion scenario, the side with better autonomous targeting and tracking could determine victory before a single human-fired missile is launched.
“The PLA is betting big on AI,” he told Business Insider. “If Taiwan and the U.S. don’t match that, we’re done.”
Much of this strategy finds intellectual backing in The Boiling Moat, a 2024 strategy volume edited by former U.S. National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger. The book proposes a multi-layered defense of Taiwan that includes hardened ground troops, swarming drones, portable anti-ship missiles, and AI battlefield networking.
Pottinger argues that Taiwan must become “the toughest target on earth”—a phrase now common among Taiwanese officers briefing American delegations. Speaking to NPR last year, Pottinger noted that Taiwan’s survival doesn’t rest on matching China’s power, but on “convincing Beijing that the price of conquest will be far too high to bear.”
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Business
Washington Got the Better of Elon Musk

The tech tycoon’s Department of Government Efficiency was prevented from achieving its full reform agenda.
It seems that the postmodern world is a conspiracy against great men. Bureaucracy now favors the firm over the founder, and the culture views those who accumulate too much power with suspicion. The twentieth century taught us to fear such men rather than admire them.
Elon Musk—who has revolutionized payments, automobiles, robotics, rockets, communications, and artificial intelligence—may be the closest thing we have to a “great man” today. He is the nearest analogue to the robber barons of the last century or the space barons of science fiction. Yet even our most accomplished entrepreneur appears no match for the managerial bureaucracy of the American state.
Musk will step down from his position leading the Department of Government Efficiency at the end of May. At the outset, the tech tycoon was ebullient, promising that DOGE would reduce the budget deficit by $2 trillion, modernize Washington, and curb waste, fraud, and abuse. His marketing plan consisted of memes and social media posts. Indeed, the DOGE brand itself was an ironic blend of memes, Bitcoin, and Internet humor.
Three months later, however, Musk is chastened. Though DOGE succeeded in dismantling USAID, modernizing the federal retirement system, and improving the Treasury Department’s payment security, the initiative as a whole has fallen short. Savings, even by DOGE’s fallible math, will be closer to $100 billion than $2 trillion. Washington is marginally more efficient today than it was before DOGE began, but the department failed to overcome the general tendency of governmental inertia.
Musk’s marketing strategy ran into difficulties, too. His Internet-inflected language was too strange for the average citizen. And the Left, as it always does, countered proposed cuts with sob stories and personal narratives, paired with a coordinated character-assassination attempt portraying Musk as a greedy billionaire eager to eliminate essential services and children’s cancer research.
However meretricious these attacks were, they worked. Musk’s popularity has declined rapidly, and the terror campaign against Tesla drew blood: the company’s stock has slumped in 2025—down around 20 percent—and the board has demanded that Musk return to the helm.
But the deeper problem is that DOGE has always been a confused effort. It promised to cut the federal budget by roughly a third; deliver technocratic improvements to make government efficient; and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. As I warned last year, no viable path existed for DOGE to implement these reforms. Further, these promises distracted from what should have been the department’s primary purpose: an ideological purge.
Ironically, this was the one area where DOGE made major progress. In just a few months, the department managed to dismantle one of the most progressive federal agencies, USAID; defund left-wing NGOs, including cutting over $1 billion in grants from the Department of Education; and advance a theory of executive power that enabled the president to slash Washington’s DEI bureaucracy.
Musk also correctly identified the two keys to the kingdom: human resources and payments. DOGE terminated the employment of President Trump’s ideological opponents within the federal workforce and halted payments to the most corrupted institutions, setting the precedent for Trump to withhold funds from the Ivy League universities. At its best, DOGE functioned as a method of targeted de-wokification that forced some activist elements of the Left into recession—a much-needed program, though not exactly what was originally promised.
Ultimately, DOGE succeeded where it could and failed where it could not. Musk’s project expanded presidential power but did not fundamentally change the budget, which still requires congressional approval. Washington’s fiscal crisis is not, at its core, an efficiency problem; it’s a political one. When DOGE was first announced, many Republican congressmen cheered Musk on, declaring, “It’s time for DOGE!” But this was little more than an abdication of responsibility, shifting the burden—and ultimately the blame—onto Musk for Congress’s ongoing failure to take on the politically unpopular task of controlling spending.
With Musk heading back to his companies, it remains to be seen who, if anyone, will take up the mantle of budget reform in Congress. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is that Republicans will revert to old habits: promising to balance the budget during campaign season and blowing it up as soon as the legislature convenes.
The end of Musk’s tenure at DOGE reminds us that Washington can get the best even of great men. The fight for fiscal restraint is not over, but the illusion that it can be won through efficiency and memes has been dispelled. Our fate lies in the hands of Congress—and that should make Americans pessimistic.
Subscribe to Christopher F. Rufo.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
-
Business2 days ago
The ESG Shell Game Behind The U.S. Plastics Pact
-
International2 days ago
Bongino announces FBI will release files on COVID cover up, Mar-a-Lago Raid and more
-
Great Reset1 day ago
The WHO Pandemic Treaty could strip Canada of its ability to make its own health decisions
-
Fraser Institute1 day ago
Carney government’s housing plan poses major risks to taxpayers
-
espionage1 day ago
Pro-Beijing Diaspora Group That Lobbied to Oust O’Toole Now Calls for Poilievre’s Resignation Amid PRC Interference Probes
-
espionage20 hours ago
Ottawa Raises Alarm With Beijing Over Hong Kong Detention of CPC Candidate Joe Tay’s Family
-
COVID-192 days ago
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to face sentencing July 23
-
Health1 day ago
Trump’s surgeon general pick is a threat to Big Pharma, not medical freedom