July has always been a particularly warm month in Rehoboth Beach, and for President Joe Biden, it was especially so. The heat in July 2024 was political, and it radiated from the voices of Democratic leadership—many of them his closest allies. It radiated in the polls and in the anger of donors threatening to pull money from Biden’s campaign. In the weeks following his remarkably poor debate performance in late June, it became clear that Biden’s stay in the race was coming to an end. Leading the battle for the ‘Soul of America,’ would be left to someone else. And indeed, on the afternoon of July 20, Biden called upon two top aides, Steve Ricchetti and Mike Donilon, to help him craft a letter no one in the nation would see until morning. On July 21, 2024, Biden announced that he would no longer be running for reelection, to “…focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”
To most, the decision was sudden, but hardly surprising.
What will define Biden’s last months in office is the nature of his decision to step out of the presidential race, a decision with undeniable historical significance.
As journalist and Biden biographer Chris Whipple commented, it was probably the “most difficult decision he’s ever made…politically in his career…and the most difficult presidential decision since Lyndon Johnson’s own decision to step down in 1968.” Whipple characterized Biden’s decision as perhaps a fitting ending for the hero who ‘saved America from Trump.’
Biden has consistently defined himself as the only man who could fight the battle for the soul of the nation and win. He proved himself in 2020, and, as Whipple noted, “I still think to this day, he believes that he would have beaten Trump in 2024.”
Yet, as Professor Stephenen Skowronek, an expert on the American Presidency, noted, “In some ways…he [Biden] became a victim of his own argument.” Biden’s disastrous debate performance in late June against Trump revealed deep cracks in his exterior. And once “the extent of his infirmities were exposed,” continued Skowronek, “[Biden] didn’t have a good response to why he was still running. The premise of his campaign collapsed.”
Perhaps a good soldier knows when to stand down, and for that reason, Biden knew to pass the torch.
The real question is what the rest of his presidency will look like. A unique aspect of Biden’s lame duck period is that he has several more months to further his agenda than, say, an incumbent president defeated in November.
Historically, a lame duck president’s approval tends to rise. Some even go on to have capstone accomplishments—take, for example, FDR’s Great White Fleet, which dramatically improved diplomatic relations with Japan in the Indo-Pacific. Others have gone on to secure Supreme Court nominations or issue influential executive orders. President George W. Bush nominated Justice Alito in 2008, and President Obama issued an executive order in the late months of his presidency aimed to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses.
All of this remains possible for Biden, and he has already laid the rhetorical groundwork for some ambitious legislative and executive action, such as Supreme Court reform. Biden’s plan includes term limits, an enforceable code of conduct, and a ‘No One Is Above the Law Amendment’ to the constitution to limit the immunity of former presidents. All three would require strong political maneuvering to bring to fruition.
While Biden may have more time than traditional lame duck presidents, he is constrained by the nature of his voluntary departure and his successor’s candidacy. Given her vice presidential association with the current president, Harris’s candidacy is contingent upon the nature of Biden’s final few months. Despite this affiliation, Harris must still try to appeal to a moderate electorate and position herself away from large-scale policies enacted under his watch. Biden, in stepping down, has relinquished all remaining political power he came to hold as president.
Despite the fact that Biden has more time to accomplish his goals, he has significantly less political power to achieve them. “It’s not totally uncommon for presidencies to have some regulatory initiatives that have been gradually making their way through the system over the course of a term of office, and then they finally emerge at the end of a presidency,” said Keith Whittington, a Yale Law School professor, “[But] none of that’s going to be initiated now.” In Whittingon’s view, there likely won’t be any landmark executive orders in the rest of Biden’s term, as such actions would have begun earlier in the presidency when Biden had political stamina.
Biden’s priority initiatives were dependent on a second term—one that he is no longer pursuing. His extended lame duck is of no use. Instead, it is detrimental to his legacy, as the execution of many of his initiatives required a second term to be actualized. Thus, according to Whittington, Biden’s lame duck is more akin to that of a president in their second term of office, when they are unable to run for a third term. “The reason why [Biden] had stepped down is the fact that he’s clearly not the same person he was a few years ago,” Whittington said. This makes any sort of executive or legislative action more difficult. “He’s going to be more in the background than what we might otherwise see from a president at this stage of their presidency,” Whittington added.
But Biden doesn’t seem to be backing down in the face of this reality. He was quick to develop a framework dedicated toward maximizing the additional months of lame duck afforded to himself by stepping down. Whipple noted four key aspects of Biden’s framework: 1) aggressive implementation of historic legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act 2) lowering costs of living for families, student debt relief, and getting rid of junk fees 3) personal freedom and civil liberties, such as court ethics and reproductive health care access, and 4) issues of national security in Israel and Gaza, Ukraine, and China.
Professor Skowronek, like many, is skeptical of the feasibility of Biden’s plans. It seems like Biden is “setting an agenda for the future, lending legitimacy to certain programs going forward that he won’t be in charge of, and trying to control the future agenda.” For example, Supreme Court reform was an ambitious legislative action Biden mentioned in July but hasn’t revisited since. The announcement was merely signaling—and possibly an attempt to legitimize the idea of reform during a possible Harris-led presidency. According to Whittington, “from a pure legislative perspective, I don’t think [Democrats] have their votes in Congress to do anything with it, and so trying to move it at this point is not going to be very fruitful.” There is a clear discrepancy between what Biden signals he wants to pursue and what he actually can.
In addition, much of Biden’s agenda is intentionally vague for the protection of his potential successor and current vice president. Whittington believes that “the Biden administration would prefer not to get very specific about [what is] elevated on the agenda while Harris is running for the White House.” An explicit agenda would require both Biden and Harris to be more specific about what they support, which could bring Harris more criticism and political pressure and isolate independents. These are things the Harris campaign wants to avoid, as they would distract from her own platform for the presidency.
It makes sense, then, that avoiding a regional war in the Middle East and continuing to support Ukraine are at the top of Biden’s national security agenda, and perhaps the only areas where Biden may take action to polish off his legacy. In the case of the Middle East, conflict continues to develop rapidly. As Commander-In-Chief and first-mover in the usually bipartisan policy arena of national security, Biden has more constitutional authority and political agency to make legacy-impacting decisions. And as Professor Whittington described, “[presidents] don’t need Congress to take action for a lot of things presidents might do, that’s [in] an emerging and developing area.”
Yet, Biden’s efforts in foreign policy may prove to be ineffective and potentially harmful. As Professor Skowronek commented, “[Biden] wanted to get [the Middle East] settled before he left office, and it looks increasingly like that’s not going to happen, and that he doesn’t have enough time.” This is reflected by the fact that Biden’s recent attempt at a ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel was unsuccessful. Professor Skowronek likened this moment to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s dilemma over Vietnam. Although “he doesn’t say [he’s stepping down] to devote my time to ending the war in the Middle East or the war in Ukraine…he thinks of those as legacy issues….[and] being a lame duck doesn’t help.”
National security developments in the Middle East may have a similar effect on Biden to the effect of the Iranian Hostage Crisis on Jimmy Carter at the end of his presidency. Biden’s hands are essentially tied politically; by continuing to support Israel, he will likely isolate younger and more progressive voters from Harris. Backed into this corner, and with just a few months left in his term, it is unlikely that any new deal will be brokered.
Additionally, if Biden sees foreign policy as a legacy issue, there’s the matter of dependency on the outcomes of these conflicts, which remain highly variable. “If [foreign policy had] played out really well…the Bush administration would have been remembered much better than it’s now being remembered,” Whiting said. Similar logic applies to the Biden-Harris administration.
At this point in his presidency, the best thing Biden can do is nothing at all. Ultimately, the political theater has Harris on center stage, and Biden’s role is to ensure her success. As Whipple commented, “not only because it’s a battle for the soul of the nation once again, but also because Joe Biden’s place in history will depend on whether she succeeds or fails against Trump.” Biden is caught between the tension of displaying decisive action to solidify his legacy and supporting Harris and her candidacy through intentional inaction. It’s a difficult task. According to Skowronek, historically, “very few presidents are able to hand power intact to a hand-picked successor.” He cited Bill Clinton and Al Gore as one such example, where affiliation with a previous administration was more of a handicap to a candidate than a help.
This transfer of power is fundamental to how Biden will define his legacy as the 46th President of the United States. Once thought of as ‘the only man who could beat Trump,’ Biden must now place his faith in someone else to do the job—and he has to prove he made the right choice. Should Harris win in November, Biden will be remembered partially for his role in her success. Whipple put it simply: “He’s a guy who’s grounded. He’s not a guy who has to have all the attention at all times.” It is not what Biden ends up doing or not doing during his last few months in office that will define his legacy; it’s Vice President Harris’s electoral success or failure that will.
Perhaps unfortunately, “his personal incapacity is going to loom large and the story of the Biden presidency, because it’s such an unusual feature of his presidency and had such big consequences for how it ended,” Whittington said. This enhances the dependence of Biden’s presidential legacy on Harris’s success; should she lose, Biden’s decision to step out of the race in July may be viewed as too little, too late.
Biden may still have much to look back on as president. As Whipple comments, “He was able to pull the economy out of a free fall. He was able to alleviate a once in a century pandemic. He created a record number of jobs…he rallied the West and NATO against Putin when he invaded the biggest democracy in Europe.” These will all remain as remarkable accomplishments and successes of his presidency. The soul of America, in some ways, is better off than it was before.
But her defeat could mean that, rather than his legislative accomplishments capstoning his presidency, Biden’s legacy will be a “legacy of inflation and mixed economic performance,” as Whittington described.
It is impossible to know what history books will say about Biden in five, ten, or fifty years from now, but, come November, we’ll likely have a pretty good idea. Outside of the election or greater escalation in the Middle East, the curtain has already closed on the Biden presidency. An American hero fell on Rehoboth Beach. How will we remember him?