MUST WATCH: Hunter Biden Slams His Father’s Policies During…
Hunter Biden publicly broke with his father this week, delivering a blistering assessment of former President Joe Biden’s record on immigration and the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan during a wide-ranging podcast interview.
Speaking on “The Shawn Ryan Show,” the former first son acknowledged that key pillars of his father’s presidency collapsed under mismanagement, calling both border policy and the Afghanistan exit unmistakable failures.
“We need vibrant immigration,” Hunter Biden said during the five-and-a-half-hour interview released Monday. “But we don’t want immigrants that are coming here illegally, draining us of resources, and being prioritized above people that are actual, literal heroes.”
Those remarks directly contradict years of White House messaging under Joe Biden, which downplayed the impact of illegal immigration while insisting the border was secure.
During Biden’s term, an estimated 2.4 million immigrants entered the United States annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A Goldman Sachs analysis found that roughly 60 percent crossed the border illegally.
Hunter Biden also suggested that his father’s administration failed to capitalize on a potential bipartisan border agreement, despite repeated claims that Republicans were solely to blame for legislative inaction.
According to Hunter, the White House had secured tentative Republican support for a sweeping border bill negotiated by Sens. James Lankford, Kyrsten Sinema, and Chris Murphy.
“And then Donald Trump stepped in six months before the election, and told Republicans that he was gonna primary every single one of them that voted for that, because we’re addicted to the problem,” Hunter claimed.
The Biden administration consistently argued that congressional action was required to address the border crisis. President Donald Trump, by contrast, relied heavily on executive authority during both terms to enforce immigration law.
Trump’s approach resulted in sharp declines in illegal crossings and mass deportations without relying on new legislation.
Hunter Biden’s most striking remarks came when discussing the withdrawal from Afghanistan, an event that remains one of the most widely criticized episodes of his father’s presidency.
“That was an obvious f—ing failure,” Hunter said bluntly.
U.S. forces exited Afghanistan in August 2021 following a rapid collapse of the Afghan government, triggering chaotic evacuations at Kabul’s international airport.
The withdrawal culminated in an ISIS-K suicide bombing that killed 13 American service members who were assisting evacuees.
“I think that there was a better way to do it,” Hunter said. “I can blame it on his generals, I can blame it on other people, but my dad always knew this also; the buck stops with him.”
While Hunter maintained that leaving Afghanistan was ultimately the right decision, he agreed with host Shawn Ryan’s criticism of how the withdrawal was executed.
“I cannot f—ing stand the way the Afghan withdrawal happened,” Ryan said.
“I hear your anger about that,” Hunter responded. “And I don’t have any response to it other than the fact that I know that my dad came from a position that 20 years was enough.”
Hunter’s comments stand in stark contrast to Democratic efforts to defend Biden’s foreign policy record and minimize the fallout from Kabul.
They also undercut years of media narratives that portrayed criticism of Biden’s presidency as partisan exaggeration.
Coming from Biden’s own son, the admissions carry added weight and credibility.
The interview quickly gained traction online, with critics calling it a tacit acknowledgment of what voters had already concluded.
Joe Biden’s presidency ended with record-low approval ratings, driven largely by voter anger over the border crisis, inflation, and perceived global weakness.
IT ALL CAME OUT' – GAVIN NEWSOM BLOWS UP AFTER BEING EXPOSED LIVE ON AIR
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As the 2028 presidential election cycle rapidly approaches, life is getting increasingly complicated for California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The ambitious Democrat, widely expected to declare his candidacy for his party's highest nomination, is currently drowning in a massive, rapidly expanding ethics scandal centered on hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable corporate donations. As federal investigators continue to circle both the governor and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the sheer scale of his fundraising tactics is raising serious alarm bells across the political spectrum.
At the absolute center of this controversy is Newsom’s unprecedented and unapologetic use of "behested payments"—a controversial practice in California law that allows elected officials to personally solicit massive, unlimited donations from deep-pocketed corporations, wealthy individuals, and labor unions to fund specific charities or government initiatives.
While technically legal under the state's highly permissive rules, government watchdogs and ethics experts are fiercely arguing that these payments represent a glaring, dangerous loophole. It essentially allows special interests—many of whom have active, highly lucrative business before the state of California—to gain massive political influence and curry favor with the governor, entirely outside the strict boundaries of traditional campaign finance laws.
The $347 Million Man
According to official California disclosure records, the scale at which Newsom utilizes this loophole is utterly staggering. Since 2011, Newsom has reported soliciting more than $347 million in behested payments.
To put that massive figure into perspective, data from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) reveals that all elected officials statewide combined directed roughly $556 million in behested payments between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone accounted for nearly two-thirds—a whopping 62%—of that total.
By stark contrast, his predecessor, former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, reportedly solicited a relatively modest $35 million in behested payments during his entire tenure.
"Behested payments are ripe for abuse," warned Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, pointing out the obvious ethical minefield created when powerful elected officials lean on organizations that have direct business before the government.
The Optics of Influence Peddling
The ethical concerns are not just hypothetical; they are rooted in a pattern of massive corporate donations followed by highly favorable state actions.
Public reports have raised serious questions about several major donors who opened their checkbooks at Newsom's behest and later benefited immensely from state contracts or policy decisions. For example, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare giant Blue Shield donated a staggering $20 million to initiatives heavily supported by Newsom. Shortly thereafter, the corporation was miraculously awarded a highly lucrative, no-bid state contract related to vaccine distribution.
Similarly, the Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before securing a significantly expanded role in California’s massive Medi-Cal program. In another instance, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria donated millions to organizations associated with the governor and his wife’s initiatives. Later, they benefited significantly from favorable state decisions involving tribal gaming matters, including efforts to block a rival casino from opening nearby.
While proving an explicit, legal quid pro quo is notoriously difficult, critics argue that the actual transaction is irrelevant. The concern is that the system inherently encourages and rewards a "pay-to-play" culture. Assemblyman David Tangipa slammed the practice, describing behested payments as a blatant form of "political influence peddling," boldly arguing that just because the system is legal does not mean it isn't deeply corrupt.
The Family Business and Federal Heat
The issue has drawn even fiercer scrutiny because millions of these corporate dollars have been funneled directly into organizations tightly linked to the governor’s inner circle. Approximately $4.8 million in behested donations were routed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom. For many critics, corporate money flowing into a charity run by the governor's wife creates, at the very least, a glaring appearance of a massive conflict of interest.
The intense debate over this influence-peddling loophole comes at a highly precarious time for the governor. Newsom recently acknowledged that both he and his wife are currently the subjects of multiple, ongoing federal investigations. While neither has been charged with any wrongdoing, and the Department of Justice has remained completely tight-lipped about the exact nature of the inquiries, the specter of a federal probe casts a dark cloud over his 2028 presidential ambitions.
A "Laughable Slap on the Wrist"
Adding insult to injury for government transparency advocates, Newsom recently agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine handed down by the state's campaign finance watchdog, the FPPC. The fine was levied after the commission found that Newsom flagrantly failed to legally report 36 separate behested payments—totaling more than $5.6 million—within the required 30-day timeframe.
The late disclosures involved massive corporate donations solicited during the 2024 and 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, pulling in vast sums from corporate titans like BlackRock, Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Anthem Blue Cross. While Newsom's office brushed off the violation as a mere paperwork oversight during an emergency, critics blasted the $31,500 penalty as a "laughable slap on the wrist" for a wealthy politician manipulating a quarter-billion-dollar shadow fundraising system. This marks the second time Newsom has been fined for late reporting of these payments, having previously paid a $13,000 fine in 2024.
Supporters of the governor are quick to point out that these behested donations have funded critical public initiatives, including wildfire relief and charitable causes. However, the public benefit of those projects does absolutely nothing to eliminate the massive concerns surrounding transparency, corporate influence, and the ability of powerful special interests to funnel unlimited cash into causes promoted by the state's most powerful executive.
As Newsom attempts to position himself as the future of the Democratic Party, the growing scandal surrounding his $347 million loophole is forcing a national reckoning. The American people are left to wonder: if this is how Gavin Newsom runs California, how exactly would he run the country?
