A former president will not continue his fight. Joe Biden has chosen not to appeal a court ruling that clears the path for the public release of audio recordings between him and his memoir’s ghostwriter. His legal team filed a notice to dismiss their case this week. This decision ends a lengthy legal battle and hands a victory to the conservative groups who sued for the tapes.
These recordings are from 2017. They capture conversations with the writer helping Biden craft his book, Promise Me, Dad. Years later, in 2022, Biden informed the Justice Department he had discovered classified documents at his Delaware home. Federal investigators collected these tapes as part of their probe into his handling of those materials.
In 2024, Special Counsel Robert Hur concluded that while Biden had retained classified documents, criminal charges were not justified. His report described finding the documents as a potentially “unremarkable and forgettable event.” Yet the same report ignited a political firestorm. It characterized Biden, then the sitting president, as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
According to Hur, the ghostwriter tapes were key evidence. They were, the report stated, “painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.”
This description is exactly what conservative activists have sought to highlight. They argue the tapes will show concerns about Biden’s mental sharpness existed long before his presidency.
“What you’re going to hear on the tapes … is the state of Joe Biden years before he ran for president,” said Jeffrey Clark, a Trump ally involved in the lawsuit. His organization plans to release the full recordings and transcripts immediately. “We’ll put out a link,” Clark told NPR. “It’s not more complicated than that.”
Initially, the Justice Department under President Trump fought the release. They argued it would be like making public a private diary. But this spring, the Department reversed its position, stating it now intended to disclose the material.
Biden’s lawyers then intervened. They contended his privacy rights outweighed any public interest and that laws protected such conversations. Two courts disagreed, including a powerful appellate court in Washington. Notably, the judges ruling against Biden were appointed by both President Obama and President Trump. The dissenting voice was a Biden appointee.
Facing almost certain defeat, Biden’s team stood down. A source close to Biden expressed deep concern over the precedent. If private book discussions can be seized by the Justice Department and given to a private group, the source argued, it sets a “dangerous” new standard for government power.
Biden’s choice to end his legal challenge stands in stark contrast to his successor’s approach. As Biden conceded this case, President Trump was asking the Supreme Court—for a second time—to review a verdict requiring him to pay $5 million for defamation. It is extremely rare for the Court to reconsider a case it has already passed on.
The decision reveals two distinct philosophies. One involves a calculated withdrawal to avoid a worse outcome. The other pursues every possible avenue, regardless of the odds. For now, the result is that hours of a former vice president’s private recollections are set to become public fodder. The political world waits to hear what they contain.
- The recordings are from 2017.
- The report described finding the documents as “unremarkable and forgettable.”
- Biden’s lawyers argued for his privacy rights.
- Two courts disagreed with Biden’s position.
- Conservative activists aim to highlight concerns about Biden’s mental sharpness.
- Clark’s organization plans to release the tapes immediately.
| Year | Event | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Recordings made | Conversations for memoir |
| 2022 | Biden discovers classified documents | Investigation opened |
| 2024 | Special Counsel’s conclusion | No criminal charges justified |
| 2023 | Biden’s legal team dismisses case | Victory for conservative groups |
