Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told viewers on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that President Joe Biden “should not have run” for a second term in 2024, remarks that have rekindled debate about who in the Democratic establishment could or should have intervened during the campaign.
Buttigieg, who served in the Biden administration from 2021 to 2024 and is a 2028 presidential contender, said in the interview that Biden’s decision to seek a second term was his alone and suggested that an earlier withdrawal could have produced a different outcome. Buttigieg also said that “it literally was his decision,” adding that others in the administration were not able to force a different choice.
Buttigieg’s remarks contrast with statements he made during the 2024 campaign and in the months after it, when he publicly defended Biden’s fitness for office. In July of 2024, Buttigieg said he had not seen evidence of cognitive decline in the president and that he “always got whatever [he] needed” from the Oval Office, comments that were cited by critics as part of a broader pattern of administration allies publicly downplaying concerns about Biden’s performance.
The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has not been alone in expressing the view that Biden’s reelection bid should have been reconsidered. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, in reflections on the administration’s handling of the 2024 campaign, wrote that key figures had treated the decision as the Bidens’ personal choice. Opinion writers and some commentators have argued that high-ranking Democrats and political advisers were slow to act after President Biden’s widely discussed debate performance in June 2024 and that discussions among party elders — including references to the 25th Amendment in some media accounts — surfaced as concerns rose.
An opinion column in the New York Post on Sept. 15 criticized Buttigieg and other Democrats for what it called a late acknowledgment of missteps, saying their recent comments on Biden’s decision to run were “too late” to affect the outcome and suggested the timing was intended to preserve future political ambitions. The column cited the view among some conservative commentators that Democratic officials had repeatedly defended the president’s competence during the campaign.
Supporters of Buttigieg and other Democrats have pushed back on characterizations that they enabled a flawed campaign. They note the political and constitutional limits on removing a sitting president and argue that private counsel to the president differs from public critique. Allies have also pointed to the logistical and political challenges of persuading a president to withdraw while the nomination and general-election processes were underway.
Beyond the internal Democratic debate over 2024, Buttigieg’s tenure as transportation chief has come under scrutiny in the wake of his comments. Critics have pointed to the rollout of electric vehicle infrastructure and other transportation projects, saying progress has been slower than promised despite more than $7 billion in federal funding. Buttigieg’s supporters contend that large-scale infrastructure programs involve complex implementation timelines and multiple levels of government.
The public reassessment of decisions by Biden-era officials comes as several Democrats, including Buttigieg and Harris, weigh their own political calculations ahead of 2028. Analysts say the way party leaders and former administration officials frame their roles in the 2024 campaign could influence perceptions of their credibility with Democratic voters and donors.
For now, the debate highlights continuing divisions within the Democratic Party over accountability and strategy. Buttigieg’s comments add to a running public debate about how elected officials and advisers should balance private counsel and public candor when a president’s fitness for office becomes an issue during an election cycle.