How to get Joe Biden to tell us something new (because there’s a lot we don’t know)

When Joe Biden finally gets around to holding the first news conference of his presidency — he told reporters on Thursday that he would take their questions “in the next couple days” — the White House press corps will almost inevitably blow it.

They’ll ask incremental, trivial questions; they’ll try to catch him in gotchas; they’ll smugly demand to know why he failed to rally Republicans; they’ll ask about the dog and Dr. Seuss and maybe even Mr. Potato Head. He’ll end up saying a lot of stuff he’s said a million times before.

What the reporters in that room really need to do, because they are the only ones who have the ability and the responsibility to do so, is dig deeper, hold him accountable and increase the public’s understanding of what’s going on inside his head — and his White House.

Some smart, clear questions about the news of the moment would be entirely appropriate. And let’s acknowledge that it’s a huge relief to have a functioning executive branch and officials who don’t lie all the time

But there’s a lot we still don’t know about the Biden administration, its intentions, its decision-making processes and its approach to power. So far, by limiting his statement to specific topics, Biden has left a wealth of others entirely unaddressed.

That’s why I’d like to see at least some questions that don’t have talking-point answers, and that will add to our understanding of how this presidency is going to work. Ideally, they would not only provide transparency, but encourage even more of it. So I’ll start with some of those:

Transparency, the public’s right to know, and increased visibility into the White House

Q. Some have argued that after the past four years, the best way to restore trust to the office of the presidency is with radical transparency — showing people the actual process of governing, warts and all. What are your instructions to your White House staff, to your Cabinet officials and to federal employees generally about transparency? Will you give them permission to speak publicly, on the record, without negative consequences, about the public’s business?

Q. You’ve committed to releasing logs of in-person visitors to the White House. Will you also divulge the names of attendees at virtual meetings, which are the primary mode of interaction for the moment?

Q. Will you proactively establish entire classes of documents that will be made public by federal agencies without reporters having to ask? That would include the calendars of agency heads, agency org charts, top contracts and grants, all unclassified correspondence with Congress and a summary of classified inspector general reports, for starters.

Q. So far, your White House has really failed to use new technology to engage with citizens — for instance. by seeking input or improving oversight. Similarly, your website doesn’t provide anything like a window into what’s going on inside the White House: Who works there, where they’re coming from, what they’re working on. Do you want that to change?

Q. Here are 10 requests that reporters made using the Freedom of Information Act in the previous administration that were refused despite their obvious public-interest value. Would you commit to looking at this list and getting back to us about why you think they should be made public, or why not?

Q. You’ve said you were always the last person in the room with Barack Obama when he was president. Who is the last person in the room with you? Who are the people you turn to the most?

Use of military force and abuse of intelligence

Q. Describe what you want the process to be before someone asks you to approve a targeted killing.

Q. Describe what you want the process to be before someone asks you to approve military action. Please explain when you feel that process requires congressional consultation or pre-approval.

Q. Will you dial back claims of unilateral presidential power by vowing to not use force abroad — beyond your Article II authority to respond to or prevent armed attacks, or to defend U.S. nationals in peril — absent congressional authorization?

Q. When did you realize that U.S. troops in Afghanistan were doing more harm than good? How and when does that finally end?

Q. Now that other countries are using armed drones, too, do you think the U.S. should establish rules for their use?

Q. When will the Guantanamo Bay prison be shut down? When will you reject the government’s use of indefinite detention without charge?

Q. How safe from government surveillance are the American people? To what extent is the government, on your watch, engaged in the mass collection of private communications involving Americans?

The Trump factor

Q. How do you explain what has happened to the leadership of the Republican Party? What happened to the Republican senators you used to consider friends, but who now spread lies and conspiracy theories and show no interest in actually governing?

Q. Do you think that political figures and others who are unwilling to acknowledge that you legitimately won the election should be part of the national discourse? Will you reach out to them on legislative issues?

Q. As your administration learns more about what happened inside the executive branch during the last four years, have you discovered abuses of power that the public still doesn’t know about?

Q. Are there any parts of the executive branch that you have found so badly damaged that they are effectively unable to enforce the law? Which ones need rebuilding the most?

The Biden factor

Q. During the campaign, you were able to avoid talking much about the bad choices you made in your political life. But now that you are here, wouldn’t it be helpful for everyone to learn more about your evolution, and how you have learned from your mistakes?

Q. For instance, when did you finally realize that your Iraq war vote had enabled a full-fledged disaster, and what did you learn from that?

Q. You certainly appear to have shifted away from being a deficit hawk. When did you realize that was a mistake?

Q. How do you feel today about the Bankruptcy Act you championed in 2005, which caused incredible damage to the middle class?

Q. You are obviously not the same person you were when you were younger. What abilities would you say you have lost and gained over time? Do you turn to others for help more than you used to? Do you feel the same command over a wide range of issues that you had when you were younger?

Q. When speaking extemporaneously, you occasionally interrupt yourself in mid-sentence and go on riffs that don’t seem directly related. Sometimes it’s not easy to figure out exactly what you mean. What are we to make of that?

Executive power

Q. You criticized your predecessor for his overly broad interpretation of executive power. Give us some examples of how you interpret it less broadly.

Q. Trump denied the legitimacy of congressional oversight and asserted blanket immunity from congressional subpoenas. Will you commit to respecting congressional subpoenas?

Q. Will you continue to broadly assert that any communications with you directly are privileged? Why or why not?

Q. Here are 10 specific requests for information from Congress that Trump flatly rejected. Would you commit to looking at this list and getting back to us about why you think they should be made public, or why not?

Pardon power and criminal justice

Q. Are there any pardons that you believe are out of line for the president to grant? Will you rule out issuing any pardons to members of your administration, your friends and family?

Q. You have an opportunity to make a powerful statement about historic wrongs in the criminal justice system by enthusiastically using your pardon and commutation power. You’ve said you regret your votes to increase mandatory minimums for drug offenses; now you could act on that regret with a stroke of your pen. Do you have any plans along those lines?

Q. Isn’t it past time to remove marijuana from the federal schedule of controlled substances?

Q. What do you think is the maximum amount of time someone should spend behind bars for simple possession of marijuana in this country?

Q. People who are unable to afford bail are detained while they await trial for weeks or even months. In what circumstances do you think that’s fair?

Voting rights (and the filibuster)

Q. Making it harder to vote has become a major goal of the Republican Party in almost every state. What do you make of a political party that wants fewer people to vote? Should that make voters angry?

Q. How essential to the future of our democracy is H.R. 1, the For the People Act? Given that it will never get 60 votes in the Senate, what do you do about that?

Q. Do you think Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico should get statehood? What more could you possibly need to know before you decide?

The value of dissent

Q. Presidents live inside a bubble, isolated from real life and surrounded by people who agree with them and try to make them happy. What, if anything, are you doing to make sure that you keep in mind the views and needs of Americans unlike the ones in the White House?

Q. Do you hear dissent? Do you encourage it? Some good government groups have suggested that you “prioritize the institutionalization and protection of dissent across government.” Will you do that?

Q. What is your message to civil servants or federal contractors who have concerns about policies, corruption or inappropriate interference? Should they come forward? Should they go public? Will they be protected from retaliation?

Q. Could you give us a recent example of a time someone disagreed with you and it changed your mind?

Q. Let’s take the issue of canceling student debt as an example. Walk us through the views you are hearing as you consider the issue.

The state of the media

Q. One of the country’s major media outlets, Fox News, traffics in outright disinformation and far-right propaganda, arguably even incitement. Most other media outlets, by contrast, respect facts, to a greater or lesser degree. Do you personally see a gulf between Fox and the others? Would you encourage the public to consider them differently? Should the White House?

Q. Why is your administration still prosecuting Julian Assange? Did you approve the decision in February to continue seeking his extradition from the U.K.?

Q. Will you pledge not to use the Espionage Act of 1917 to pursue people who leak to journalists?

Q. How concerned are you about the decline of local journalism, and what do you think should be done about it?

Corporate power, regulation and antitrust

Q. You’ve appointed quite a number of people with serious credibility when it comes to regulating big corporations and breaking up monopolies. What do you hope you will have accomplished in those areas in four years?

Q. You have yet to identify nominees for three of the biggest potential chokepoints for a progressive regulatory and antitrust agenda: chair of the Federal Trade Commission, assistant attorney general for antitrust, and head of the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. What’s going on there?

Q. Some of your hires have a history of serving special interests — Big Tech, other large corporations, for-profit prisons and the like — rather than the public interest. As you fill the many remaining positions in your administration, how seriously will you take potential conflicts of interest? What do you consider disqualifying?

Q. Do you consider high-speed broadband internet service as a requirement for modern citizenship? If so, how do you see the government ensuring that it is accessible and affordable to all Americans?

Justice for Khashoggi

Q. Human rights and free-press advocates here and across the globe were outraged by your decision not to directly punish Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, even after identifying him as the man ultimately responsible for the ambush, murder and dismemberment of dissident journalist and Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi. They feel this will only increase his sense of impunity. Is “stability” with an ally more important than anything else?

Q. Are there any penalties or plans involving MBS that we don’t know about yet? Will you ever be willing to meet with him in person?

Q. You released a very abbreviated report about the killing. Would you consider disclosing more? In particular, if U.S. intelligence agencies knew that the Saudi regime was planning to abduct or kill Khashoggi, they were required by law to warn him. Did they have any such advance knowledge?

Trade, China and manufacturing

(Thanks to Salon executive editor Andrew O’Hehir for these.)

Q. Trump’s trade war with China was a disaster — but so were the “free trade” policies of the last two Democratic presidents. Where does the balance lie for you between protecting American jobs, the economic reality of massive trade with China, and improving working conditions in China and other manufacturing and export nations?

Q. Major auto manufacturers now say they’re likely to phase out internal-combustion engines over the next 10 years. Does that need to be a federal standard? At what point do we get gas-guzzlers off the streets forever?

Immigration and the border

Q. Who should get a pathway to citizenship and who shouldn’t?

Q. Are you anticipating a surge at the border? What are you going to do about it?

Q. Please walk us through exactly what should happen when an unaccompanied minor arrives at the U.S border.

Q. Do you consider the facilities in which these children are currently being kept to be humane? How is this any better than what was happening under the previous administration?

Q. What is your response to the right-wing claims that you are opening up the country to an invasion?

Q. What do you say to the ICE officers who think you’re soft? What do you say to the immigrant-rights activists who say the ICE officers aren’t changing their attitudes?

In conclusion

There’s nothing magical about a news conference. As I wrote in 2004, in my first piece ever for Salon, they generally don’t make much news. Lou Cannon, who covered the Reagan White House for the Washington Post, told me: “News conferences have always been a forum for the president to say what he wants to say, not for us to get the information that we want to get.”

But as the late, great legendary White House press corps veteran Helen Thomas put it: “The presidential news conference is the only forum in our society in which the president can be questioned. If he doesn’t answer questions, there’s no accountability.”

It seems to me that a key to making presidential news conferences of value to the public is to establish, at the first one, that a reporter has the right and responsibility to follow up on their question. That doesn’t mean asking a second question; that means the reporter should listen to the answer (unfortunately a non-starter for some of them right there). If it wasn’t fully responsive, they should say so, and ask again. If it was responsive, they should try to pin down any ambiguities, or try to tease out a bit more information.

A news conference, unfortunately, is nothing like a sit-down interview for really drilling down on where a president is coming from. But the first news conference is a significant milestone. Will the new president answer questions or duck them? Will he be honest? Will he be clear? And will we learn anything new?

7 COMMENTS

  1. I usually agree with 95% of your posts, but in this case, I disagree with many of your questions. Most of the changes you seek in terms of transparency, relinquishing of certain authorities, and foreign entanglements require Congressional action. Even if Biden agreed to unprecedented transparency and a self-imposed reduction of certain powers, this would do nothing to bind the next president, irrespective of party affiliation. Some of the answers would simply provide soundbites for right-wing media with little gained from the answers. Some questions require disclosures that would imperil delicate multi-country negotiations. Some of the questions are ones that might be of interest to the national media but are of little interest to the average person who is battling economic worries, trying desperately to procure a vaccine, and worried about the well-being of their children. The press should ask tough questions, but many of the questions posed should be directed at Congressmen. GOP leaders were regularly allowed to shrug off questions during the Trump administration and even now, few have been pressed on their ‘no’ votes re the Rescue Act, they are not pressed for answers to the complex immigration issues, nor are they pressed on their obstinance to gun reform favored by 75% of the country.

    • I agree with you. Reporters should be asking things the public needs and wants to know. The Iraq War and bankruptcy bill votes may have been reasonable questions during the campaign but those issues have been raised in the past and the public elected Biden anyway. They are just gotcha questions now. And you are right that some of them are things the national media is interested in but don’t serve the interest of the public. The questions should not focus on the past but on the problems we are currently facing and Biden’s plans for addressing them.

  2. Some excellent questions here. It occurs that reporters pointing these incisive issues of President Biden is going to seem unfair. Trump was largely given a free pass over most of his 4 years, and then egregiously manipulated the press over the rest of his time. One also hopes that reporters develop some kind of memory that allows them to ask things like, “Two months ago, you were asked if you would respond to the question of ____. You said you needed more information about the topic before you could do more than an off-the-cuff remark. What information did you get and how would you answer now?

  3. Some marvelous additional questions posted on Facebook by reader Bruce Barrett Banner:

    Q: There are a variety of plans for addressing the climate emergency for a fraction of US and global GDP*. These usually come under the heading of the Green New Deal, a label that has been demonized by right-wing disinformation. Considering that this is the greatest existential threat facing humanity, how will you overcome the climate denialism to take effective action here in the US and to foster cooperation abroad to meet this threat?

    Q: The covid-19 pandemic and vaccine rollout has starkly underlined the failures of the US private for-profit healthcare system. The next pandemic is likely waiting in the wings. What lessons has your administration learned from these failures? And since the healthcare of each impacts the country’s social healthcare of all are you willing to join the rest of the developed and developing world in providing universal healthcare, such as Medicare4All, as a necessary step in preparation for the next pandemic?

    Q: Your administration has extended the New START treaty with Russia after the previous administration tried to scuttle it and start a new arms race. What steps do you plan to take to further reduce nuclear arms stockpiles? Do you plan to include not only China but also the UK, France, and other nuclear powers? Will you acknowledge the existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons? Can you envision a nuclear-free world?

    Q: The reigning doctrine of the past 40 years or so is called neoliberalism, the idea that government is the problem, not the solution. Considering the market failures we can see all around us, from decaying infrastructure, such as Texas’ blackouts during the freeze, the inadequacy of the nation’s healthcare system in the face of a pandemic, to the skyrocketing economic inequality, political polarization, threats to democracy, and social disruption, is it finally time to acknowledge the legitimate role of government in securing the promises spelled out in the preamble to the constitution? Are taxes on the wealthy and corporations necessary to not only to fund necessary government duties and obligations, but also to prevent the corruption of democracy into plutocratic oligarchy?

    * https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646903/climate-crisis-and-the-global-green-new-deal-by-noam-chomsky-and-robert-pollin-in-conversation-with-cj-polychroniou/?fbclid=IwAR3RqLuK-V4HmqSKmIkbNyc3WqOf6gTSkdEg3eRsFjU39EIH_NPTlcRAPN0

    Link: https://www.facebook.com/froomkin/posts/10164701706655521?comment_id=10164701894105521&reply_comment_id=10164702488520521

  4. Dan Froomkin
    Q: There are a variety of plans for addressing the climate emergency for a fraction of US and global GDP*. These usually come under the heading of the Green New Deal, a label that has been demonized by right-wing disinformation. Considering that this is the greatest existential threat facing humanity, how will you overcome the climate denialism to take effective action here in the US and to foster cooperation abroad to meet this threat?

    Q: The covid-19 pandemic and vaccine rollout has starkly underlined the failures of the US private for-profit healthcare system. The next pandemic is likely waiting in the wings. What lessons has your administration learned from these failures? And since the healthcare of each impacts the country’s social healthcare of all are you willing to join the rest of the developed and developing world in providing universal healthcare, such as Medicare4All, as a necessary step in preparation for the next pandemic?

    Q: Your administration has extended the New START treaty with Russia after the previous administration tried to scuttle it and start a new arms race. What steps do you plan to take to further reduce nuclear arms stockpiles? Do you plan to include not only China but also the UK, France, and other nuclear powers? Will you acknowledge the existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons? Can you envision a nuclear-free world?

    Q: The reigning doctrine of the past 40 years or so is called neoliberalism, the idea that government is the problem, not the solution. Considering the market failures we can see all around us, from decaying infrastructure, such as Texas’ blackouts during the freeze, the inadequacy of the nation’s healthcare system in the face of a pandemic, to the skyrocketing economic inequality, political polarization, threats to democracy, and social disruption, is it finally time to acknowledge the legitimate role of government in securing the promises spelled out in the preamble to the constitution? Are taxes on the wealthy and corporations necessary to not only to fund necessary government duties and obligations, but also to prevent the corruption of democracy into plutocratic oligarchy?

    *https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646903/climate-crisis-and-the-global-green-new-deal-by-noam-chomsky-and-robert-pollin-in-conversation-with-cj-polychroniou/

  5. I disagree with the point that COVID has underlined the failures of our private for-profit healthcare system. I don’t disagree that our system is a mess but the main failure in this pandemic was our government’s public health system infrastructure which had been badly damaged by Republican cost cutting and cutting of programs that were designed to meet these kinds of crises. For example Republicans refused to authorize funds to restock our national PPE supply which had been drawn down during the swine flu epidemic despite reports showing that we would need it to meet our needs in a pandemic.
    https://www.propublica.org/article/us-emergency-medical-stockpile-funding-unprepared-coronavirus
    Trump also downgraded and cut our public pandemic response programs.
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/trump-obama-coronavirus-pandemic-response

    And we shouldn’t forget that it was private, for profit companies that developed those vaccines in record time and private companies that have distributed it. The government helped the fast vaccine development with Operation Warp Speed but Trump refused to use the power of the Defense Production Act to make sure the supplies need for large scale production of them could be met.

    The failures were mainly failures of our public, not private sector. In a pandemic the government response is the key to a successful response. Germany did very well in the early months with Merkel’s leadership. In contrast the UK, which has a very effective non-profit healthcare system, had a terrible response to the pandemic due to failure of their government public health response. The hospitals and healthcare workers did their part but, like us, the government didn’t. As a result the UK has has consistently had a higher per capita death rate than even we have had. That government has had an effective vaccination program so apparently Boris the Bumbling learned something.
    https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.