
| Published May 26, 2025
A recent exposé titled Original Sin by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson has ignited significant controversy by alleging that a small, influential group—dubbed the “Politburo”—effectively controlled the Biden White House during his presidency. This inner circle reportedly included senior advisers Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, and Bruce Reed, as well as family members Jill and Hunter Biden. The book claims that this group made critical decisions, often sidelining cabinet members and other officials, while managing President Biden’s public image amid concerns about his cognitive health .
Mike Donilon, senior adviser
Donilon, who served as a senior adviser to Biden from the start of his presidency until January 2024 when he hopped over to the campaign, had been a close confidant of the former president since the 1980s.
During his time on the 2024 campaign, he raked in a jaw-dropping $4 million salary, according to “Original Sin.” Some outside observers, including Obama strategist David Axelrod, assessed that he was “tied to Biden emotionally that he could not accept the truth.”
Donilon, a former pollster and media consultant, was widely seen as a true believer in Biden who earned the former president’s mutual trust.
“The president valued Mike Donilon’s advice so much that aides would later joke that if he wanted, he could get Biden to start a war,” Thompson and Tapper wrote.
Donilon, a former pollster and media consultant, was widely seen as a true believer in Biden who earned the former president’s mutual trust.
Steve Ricchetti, counselor to the president
Ricchetti, who served as counselor to the president throughout Biden’s time in the White House, served as the 46th president’s chief of staff during the latter half of his vice presidency and worked on Biden’s campaign. He also previously served as the White House deputy chief of staff for operations in the Clinton administration.
During the Biden administration, Ricchetti played a key role in helping the former president steer through key legislative battles. At times, he would also weigh in on pressing political matters.
At one point, Ricchetti personally called a reporter of an unnamed media outlet off the record to refute claims from multiple sources about Biden’s health, according to the book. He also fumed after actor George Clooney penned a stunning op-ed urging Biden to drop out of the race.
“Ricchetti read it and was furious. Internally, he threatened to shut Clooney down—some of his colleagues thought he sounded like a mob boss,” the authors wrote.
Steve Ricchetti, a former lobbyist, had been with Joe Biden during his vice presidency, campaign and presidency.AFP via Getty Images
Bruce Reed, deputy chief of staff for policy
Reed previously served as Biden’s chief of staff during the first half of his vice presidency, prior to Ricchetti later taking over that post. He is also an alumnus of the Clinton administration.
He was widely regarded as a “policy wonk” and was among the advisers who helped prep Biden for his disastrous debate against President Trump.
Bruce Reed’s daughter became the day scheduler for the president.
Ron Klain, ex-chief of staff
As Biden’s first chief of staff during his presidency, Klain was very influential and had sway over key decisions and messaging strategy — even after he left the White House, according to “Original Sin.”
Klain had been in Biden’s orbit since the 1980s during the former president’s Senate days. He also worked on the Clinton campaign in 2016.
He officially exited the White House in February 2023, but still retained influence on the former president and helped him prepare for his disastrous debate against Trump last June.
“Biden showed a particular deference to Klain even though his chief of staff was often more progressive. Biden had deep respect for Klain’s intellect. ‘Only one person here is smarter than me and it’s
Ron,’ aides heard him say,” the book claimed.
Ron Klain had worked with former President Joe Biden for decades.Bloomberg via Getty Images
Hunter Biden and Jill Biden
Jill Biden had also been a key force in trying to shield her husband’s faux pas from the public in what some have dubbed operation “bubble wrap” and Hunter Biden was seen as a key force trying to prevent his father from dropping out of the 2024 race.
In the earlier stages of the former president’s political career, the first lady had been a “reluctant political spouse,” but she had significant influence throughout his administration, admonishing staffers at times for letting him ramble on too long in front of the cameras.
Hunter Biden had weighed heavily on his father during his second term, and some aides speculated it played a role in his decline.
“To understand Joe Biden’s deterioration, top aides told us, one has to know Hunter’s struggles,” the book said.
‘Plum jobs’
Many “politburo” members also brought key friends and family into plum Biden administration roles.
Donilon’s niece landed a role on the National Security Council, according to the book.
The authors suggest that the Politburo’s influence extended to major policy decisions, with some cabinet secretaries expressing frustration over being excluded from key discussions. For instance, one unnamed official noted that significant economic decisions were made without consulting Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen .
These revelations have sparked debates about transparency and accountability within the administration. Critics argue that the concentration of power among a select few undermines democratic processes and raises questions about the president’s autonomy. Supporters, however, contend that close advisers and family members naturally play significant roles in any presidency, especially during challenging times.
The book’s findings have also led to discussions about the media’s role in scrutinizing presidential administrations and the importance of addressing health concerns of public officials. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the implications of these allegations may influence public trust and future electoral decisions.
The implications of the “Politburo” revelations, from both political and institutional perspectives, are significant—especially for those critical of how the Biden White House was managed:
1. Presidential Competency in Question
If a small group unofficially ran the White House, it raises serious concerns about President Biden’s mental acuity and decision-making independence. For critics, this reinforces claims that Biden was a figurehead, with real power resting in unelected hands.
2. Transparency and Accountability
The alleged sidelining of cabinet officials challenges democratic norms. It suggests an opaque power structure, where unelected aides and family members wield disproportionate influence—undermining public trust in the constitutional role of executive leadership.
3. Family Influence & Potential Nepotism
Including Jill and Hunter Biden in the inner circle fuels accusations of nepotism and personal favoritism, particularly given Hunter Biden’s past legal and ethical controversies. This perception could further damage the administration’s credibility.
4. Policy Decisions by Committee
Important policy issues reportedly being decided without input from department heads (like Treasury or Defense) could indicate dysfunction or mistrust within the administration. That may explain perceived inconsistencies or delays in national policy.
5. Precedent for Future Presidents
If this model of centralized, informal control goes unchecked, it risks setting a dangerous precedent where future presidents can be propped up by unelected insiders, bypassing constitutional checks and balances.
6. Political Fallout
These revelations could influence voter sentiment and provide fuel for political opponents who want to frame the administration as secretive, unaccountable, or incompetent—especially during elections or hearings.
Overall Takeaway:
The “Politburo” allegations paint a picture of a Biden White House tightly controlled by a small, unelected group of insiders—including close advisers and family—raising deep concerns about transparency, presidential autonomy, and constitutional governance.
To critics, it confirms fears that the president may not have been fully in charge, and that major decisions were shaped behind closed doors by a political inner circle—not by the broader, accountable government structure Americans expect.
Be the first to comment