Politics
Floyd Abrams: GOP-backed Fla. bill targeting the press is ‘plainly inconsistent with’ First Amendment
LGBTQ groups have criticized measure
A bill by Florida Republicans that would relax the standards required for public officials to sue journalists and media organizations for libel is “plainly inconsistent with the First Amendment” according to the acclaimed attorney and constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams.
“The statute is a frontal attack” on the U.S. Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the principles “governing First Amendment libel law as it currently exists,” Abrams told the Washington Blade by phone on Wednesday.
Abrams has represented parties in litigation before the Supreme Court more than a dozen times in some of the most important and high-profile First Amendment cases brought over the last 50 years, which has led to landmark rulings including on matters governing press freedoms.
Abrams is senior counsel at Cahill Gordon and Reindel, the multinational law firm where he has worked since 1963. He is widely considered among the country’s preeminent litigators and experts in constitutional law and was described by the late diplomat and U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) as “the most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age.”
With this Florida statute, Abrams said it appears Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and his conservative allies in the legislature are making “an effort to come up with something which will lead the Supreme Court to take another look” at its 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which established that the First Amendment confers certain protections for the press against libel lawsuits by public figures.
The ruling, reaffirmed and developed in subsequent cases over the years, acts as a bulwark preventing powerful public figures including elected officials from weaponizing lawsuits or the threat of litigation to silence or censor reporters and news organizations.
DeSantis and Florida’s GOP legislators are hardly out of step with leaders in the Republican Party including former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly pledged to change the libel laws so he could more easily sue media companies.
When Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 vice presidential candidate, sued the New York Times for libel in 2016, the paper wrote that advocates for weakening the press’ protections against libel lawsuits were “more emboldened now than at any point” since the Sullivan case. They have ideological allies in the right-wing legal establishment, too: In 2021, conservative Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed an interest in revisiting the court’s ruling in Sullivan.
Supreme Court unlikely to revisit longstanding approach to First Amendment, libel law
Abrams said if the Florida bill is signed into law, given that “virtually any entity, which reports the news would be imperiled by this statute,” he can envision legal challenges from a variety of entities, from groups like the “ACLU to the Reporters’ Committee [for Freedom of the Press] to organizations of journalists to newspapers.” Litigation over the law’s constitutionality could, of course, reach the Supreme Court.
At the same time, Abrams said he doubts there is much appetite among the justices to abrogate or weaken the decades-old ruling in Sullivan, which stipulates that to bring a successful libel case against the press, public officials must first prove the offending material was defamatory and then show it was published with “actual malice,” either with the knowledge that it was false or with “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.
“I would be very surprised if Chief Justice Roberts is in favor of revisiting New York Times against Sullivan because he has been a strong First Amendment defender,” Abrams said, and based on “Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions when he was on the Court of Appeals, I would be surprised if he is prepared to challenge” Sullivan.
Abrams conceded “there may be more reasons to think that one or more conservative jurists” on the Supreme Court could be convinced to join Thomas and Gorsuch’s calls to reconsider libel protections for the press. Working against this effort, however, is the extent to which the Florida statute is inconsistent from the court’s analysis of the relevant legal questions, Abrams said.
Examples, he said, include: (1) the proposal’s narrowing of the parameters used to define certain plaintiffs as “public figures” for purposes of First Amendment libel law, a distinction that carries a higher burden of proof than that which is required of private citizens suing members of the press; (2) its treatment of information attributed to anonymous sources as presumably false, a finding that plaintiffs claiming defamation would otherwise be required to prove; and (3) its characterization as inherently defamatory any accusations published by the press of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The statute’s presumption that material attributed to anonymous sources is false would undermine the method by which the courts evaluate libel claims brought by public figures, Abrams said: “The Supreme Court has certainly made clear that the legal test requires the party suing to demonstrate the newspaper [or] journalist didn’t believe what he or she was saying.”
Put differently, Abrams said, the analysis turns on the defendant’s state of mind “as a basis for determining if the alleged libel of a public figure is actionable.”
Therefore, Abrams said, to “have a flat presumption that any use of confidential sources will be held against the journalist is inconsistent” with the type of claims that might “lead the Supreme Court to take another look at the law” established with Sullivan.
Censoring criticism of anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Likewise with the legislation’s provision that the press’s accusation of discrimination by a public official would constitute prima facie evidence of defamation, Abrams said “The Supreme Court has said more than once, and often in the voice of conservative jurists, that such speech is protected by the First Amendment.”
Florida’s statute goes even further, however. Per the substantial truth doctrine, a defendant accused of defamation can avoid legal liability by showing that the gist of the material at issue in the complaint was true. Under the proposed bill, a journalist who is sued for publishing accusations of discrimination (now considered inherently defamatory) may not cite as evidence of their truth (or substantial truth) the public official’s membership in any religious or scientific organization — even if that organization has a documented pattern and practice of discrimination, or well-known views that are unambiguously sexist, racist or anti-LGBTQ.
The bill’s apparent effort to censor media coverage of discrimination by public officials raised red flags with LGBTQ groups like GLAAD, whose president, Sarah Kate Ellis said, in a statement shared with the Blade on Wednesday: “Those spewing harmful and inaccurate words do not have the support for their dangerous rhetoric and policies, and they’re rightfully afraid they’ll be held accountable by voters and a free press that accurately reports on efforts to scapegoat and target vulnerable people.”
“This bill is another futile attack on LGBTQ Floridians, a sign of full-blown panic against a rising tide of acceptance for LGBTQ people and for the full equality of women, people of color and queer people of color,” Ellis said.
Jon Harris Maurer, an attorney who serves as public policy director for Equality Florida, the state’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization, told the Blade by phone on Thursday that based on the alignment of DeSantis and Republicans in the legislature, chances are the bill will be signed into law.
Maurer said Florida’s Republican lawmakers, with supermajorities in both chambers, “have made clear they are prioritizing Gov. DeSantis’ legislative agenda.” At, or at least near, the top of that agenda is the state’s proposal to weaken libel protections for journalists, Maurer said, noting DeSantis’ decision to convene a recent roundtable discussion on the matter where speakers explained their reasons for wanting the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan.
Other recent high-priority policy items for DeSantis and his allies have focused on using “the LGBTQ community to score political points with a far-right presidential primary base,” Maurer said. Florida’s governor, state lawmakers, or other officials might find the press coverage of these matters unflattering, Maurer said, but that hardly means the coverage is false or even defamatory.
So, the proposal to relax the standards required for public officials to sue reporters and media organizations for libel “is intended to have a chilling effect on media, particularly media that would be critical of Gov. DeSantis and those who share his positions,” Maurer said.
Maurer agreed with Abrams that the bill’s proponents likely have their sights set on the Supreme Court — and that the proposal, as currently written, is totally inconsistent with the court’s treatment of First Amendment libel law.
If the bill is signed into law and litigation over its constitutionality reaches the Supreme Court, Maurer declined to speculate what the outcome might be. The court’s conservative justices have scrapped longstanding precedent in other recent cases, he said, noting last year’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that revoked the constitutional right to abortion first established in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.
Removing protections for confidentiality of anonymous sources
Particularly in circumstances that raise national security concerns, the U.S. government has sometimes sought to prevent news organizations from publishing sensitive information in their possession or issued subpoenas demanding that journalists reveal the identities of the confidential sources who leaked it to them.
In 1971, Abrams successfully represented the Times before the Supreme Court in a landmark First Amendment case challenging the Nixon administration’s claims of executive authority to suppress the paper’s publication of confidential documents. The court’s ruling allowed the Times and other organizations to publish the material, known as the Pentagon Papers, which revealed the Johnson administration had “systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress” about America’s political and military involvement in Vietnam.
The government employee responsible for providing the documents to the Times was charged with espionage, though the charges were later dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruled in the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes that the First Amendment does not protect reporters from being called to testify before grand juries, but the government must “convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.”
The decision was cited by Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in his 2004 memorandum opinion rejecting a motion to rescind grand jury subpoenas issued to two reporters, one represented by Abrams, in connection with criminal investigations of leaks that had revealed the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson (in what became known as the “Plame affair”).
Abrams’ client, who had not published a story about Plame but learned she was working as a covert CIA operative through a confidential government source, served several months in jail for her refusal to reveal his identity as demanded by the subpoena.
Some courts have upheld the concept that journalists have a constitutional right to conceal the identities of their sources, and some states and jurisdictions have codified these rulings with so-called “shield laws,” which vary in the extent of their protections afforded to members of the press.
Florida’s proposed statute, in addition to presuming that published information attributed to anonymous sources is false, would revoke the state’s shield laws that protect journalists’ right to keep their identities confidential.
Congress
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances
Judiciary Committee markup slated for Wednesday morning
U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)’s “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which would criminalize guideline-directed gender affirming health care for minors, will advance to markup in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning.
Doctors and providers who administer medical treatments for gender dysphoria to patients younger than 18, including hormones and puberty blockers, would be subject to Class 3 felony charges punishable by up to 10 years in prison if the legislation is enacted.
LGBTQ advocates warn conservative lawmakers want to go after families who travel out of state to obtain medical care for their transgender kids that is banned or restricted in the places where they reside, using legislation like Greene’s to expand federal jurisdiction over these decisions. They also point to the medically inaccurate way in which the bill characterizes evidence-based interventions delineated in standards of care for trans and gender diverse youth as “mutilation” or “chemical castration.”
Days into his second term, President Donald Trump signed “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” an executive order declaring that the U.S. would not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit” medical treatments and interventions intended for this purpose.
Greene, who has introduced the bill in years past, noted the president’s endorsement of her bill during his address to the joint session of Congress in March when he said “I want Congress to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body.”
Congress
Pappas in Senate race focuses on costs, health care, and personal freedoms
Gay NH congressman hopes to succeed retiring US Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) recently sat down with the Washington Blade for an exclusive interview following the official launch of his bid for New Hampshire’s open U.S. Senate seat, which is expected to be among the most closely watched contests of the 2026 midterm election cycle.
The congressman, who is serving his fourth term as the representative for New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District, expects next year’s race will be “very high profile” and “challenging.” The New York Times, meanwhile, anticipates “an expensive and dogged affair.”
Senate elections tend to attract a disproportionate share of attention and resources especially in recent years as control over the chamber has tended to change hands more often and with smaller margins, but Pappas’s race is expected to be a bellwether for Democrats as they work to mount a comeback after last year’s electoral defeat.
At the same time, Pappas is gearing up for the battle over the Republican led reconciliation spending bill, with Democratic lawmakers exercising what little leverage they may have in the minority to fight against “disastrous cuts to Medicaid” while “finding other ways to protect what’s important to the people that we represent.”
Lawmakers on Sunday night gave the go-ahead for the GOP’s tax and spending package, but negotiations continue into this week as Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) works to appease conservative hardliners and swing district Republicans.
Granite Staters are “really concerned” about negotiations in Washington over spending, but also with the exigencies created by President Donald Trump over the past 100+ days of his second term, which have cropped up repeatedly during the town hall-style events in New Hampshire that Pappas has headlined over the spring.
“That’s part of the reason why things are so challenging here in Washington,” the congressman said. “Oftentimes you’re pulled in 10 different directions on any given day based on what this administration is trying to do, based on what Republicans in Congress are trying to do.”
“We’ve got to figure out how we can shed light on what’s happening, try to confront the damage, and use whatever tools we have to fight back,” he said, while remaining “focused on those things that matter most, whether that’s people losing their health insurance, cuts to programs like Social Security, and people’s access to their benefits.”
The US Senate election
“I’ve got a strong foundation of support” for the Senate race, Pappas told the Blade, noting “I’ve run four campaigns for the House in half the state of New Hampshire” whose congressional map is cleaved into halves with the congressman’s constituents in the eastern portion of the state while freshman Democratic Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander represents the 2nd District.
Following the announcement in March that New Hampshire’s senior U.S. senator, Jeanne Shaheen (D), would not be seeking reelection next year, “I spent the first couple weeks,” Pappas said, “talking directly with folks all across New Hampshire to see what was on their minds, and increasingly, I was hearing from people that they wanted me to jump into the race.”
The sentiment was shared by Shaheen and the rest of the state’s congressional delegation — Goodlander and U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D) — who quickly endorsed Pappas’s bid. Speculation that the state’s popular former governor Chris Sununu, a Republican, might mount a formidable challenge for the seat ended with his announcement last month that he would not enter the race.
Even if Pappas is on the glidepath for the Senate, which is difficult to handicap so far in advance of November 2026, the election is expected to draw substantial attention and resources.
According to the Cook Political Report, of the Senate seats that will be up for grabs in the midterms, nine are held by incumbent Democrats and 19 by incumbent Republicans who are expected to easily win reelection, which leaves just five races whose outcomes are less certain and which therefore are likely to earn most of the attention and resources next year: The blue-leaning open seat in New Hampshire, an open seat in Michigan that is currently deemed a toss-up, the seat in Georgia held by incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff, which is also considered a toss-up, and the red-leaning seats held by incumbent GOP U.S. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
While the maps present long-shot odds of Democrats regaining control of the upper chamber even though Republicans had reclaimed the Senate majority last year by flipping just four seats for a modest margin of 53-47, races like Pappas’s are expected to be testing grounds for the minority party’s major campaigns midway through Trump’s second term.
New Hampshire has long been a political battleground where elections tend to be close and voters tend to split the ticket. According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, only three U.S. states are less politically partisan: Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. The determination is based on data collated from the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, where voters in both of the Granite State’s two congressional districts favored Joe Biden and Kamala Harris over Donald Trump while supporting the Republican gubernatorial nominees, Chris Sununu and Kelly Ayotte.
Shaheen has “really built a brand that’s based on serving people and delivering for the constituents of New Hampshire,” Pappas said. “So that’s the kind of work that I want to carry on — but recognizing, in this time, that we really have to stand up and fight and be a part of our response to what this administration is doing.”
“We do need to re-establish some basic checks and balances here in Washington, so that there is oversight and accountability of an administration that’s blowing through all the guardrails and is really estranged from public opinion and from the Constitution,” he said, while continuing “to find ways to meet people where they are, to hear their stories, and to connect the fight here in Washington to people’s lives back home.”
Responding to the needs of Granite Staters
Specifically, while “people are responding to a lot of different stories,” Pappas highlighted concerns about “cuts to specific programs, the fact that we’ve got 80,000 VA employees that are going to be fired,” and over the direction in which care for veterans is headed under the new administration.
“The big fight right now is around health care,” he said. “It’s around defending Medicaid coverage, ensuring we’re going to continue to have a Medicaid expansion program in New Hampshire, which is something that I’ve worked with then-Gov. Maggie Hassan to implement, and whether we’re going to have tax fairness and prevent huge tax breaks from going to the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations.”
Asked about cuts to medical research that are impacting research universities across the country, Pappas said the issue has been raised often in discussions with people in his home state.
“The University of New Hampshire does a tremendous amount of research with federal funds,” he noted, “and that’s something that we’ve worked hard through the years to advocate for, and it’s really important for the university to continue to be able to do that work and help us understand the world around us, how it’s changing, and how we can respond to protect public health, for instance, to protect our communities against sea level rise — those are just important priorities.”
Unlocking “breakthroughs in science and medicine” is important for America’s global competitiveness, the congressman added, whether by “homegrown talent here in the United States or research scientists from around the world that want to come to our country and share their expertise and help the United States move forward.”
“Donald Trump has decided that universities and colleges are a political enemy of his, and he’s trying to punish them, but in doing that, he’s really short changing our economy and the future of the United States,” Pappas said, adding, “most people recognize that, especially people in New Hampshire.”
The congressman recounted how he was able to work closely with his colleagues in the state’s congressional delegation to leverage public pressure and influence by labor unions to reinstate probationary employees at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard who were let go following drastic cuts to the federal workforce under the Trump-Vance administration.
“It’s really critical to the future of that facility, which rehabilitates our nuclear submarine fleet and has nearly 7,000 civilian employees,” Pappas said. “So that was one case where we found that we were able to get a lot of local attention and support around an issue, and perhaps that news made it all the way back here to the Defense Department who were concerned about public pressure.”
“We’ve got a lot of long-time employees at that shipyard,” along with “a lot of new people that have been brought on board as a result of an expansion over the last several years,” the congressman noted. “Across the board, people want to know that we’re focused, especially on our families’ bottom line right now,” which is why it was important for him and his colleagues to “go to bat for a facility that’s really important to people’s livelihoods, but also to our overall economy” and for national security.
Moving forward, Pappas said, they will continue pushing back against “efforts to attack the right to organize and collective bargaining,” because “unions at the shipyard have a great relationship with management, but that could be disrupted by political efforts from this administration to attack labor unions.”
The economy and protecting personal freedoms
The congressman said that while “we need to try a little bit of everything to try to identify what is going to break through,” at the same time, “I do have the sense that the last election hinged on the economy, that every election really hinges on the economy, and those are the issues that are going to be, I think, most salient to folks next year.”
“We’ve got to make sure that we’re making progress at addressing inequities in the economy and are lowering costs,” he said. “Right now, the top issues that I hear about in New Hampshire include the high cost of housing, the lack of affordability of child care, the fact that our health care system is still inaccessible, and far too expensive for most people to be able to get the care that they need.”
“We’re not getting any of that from Republicans right now,” Pappas said, when it comes to the “work we have to do to level the playing field in our economy,” adding, “they talked a big game in the last campaign about lowering costs, but they’re taking no meaningful action to do it, and so we need to be thoughtful about a really forward-thinking agenda that can focus on how we allow people to get ahead and stand in this economy.”
Asked about whether and to what extent Pappas will focus his messaging on the president’s tariffs, he noted “people are already responding,” especially in “a state like New Hampshire that has a longstanding close relationship with Canada.”
He continued, “88 percent of our small businesses import something. We have a lot of exporting businesses that rely on their markets overseas, including in places like Canada and China, and some of those markets are going away because of the tariffs that have been slapped on U.S. goods that we export.”
Trump’s trade war “has generated so much instability in our economy, it’s really hard for our small businesses to navigate,” Pappas said, with these new “disruptions to supply chains and the threat of increased costs” following a “really tough 5-year period from inflation and workforce shortages to the pandemic that predated that.”
“This is an issue that I think brings people together across party lines,” Pappas said. “Folks understand that we have trade agreements in place that have been negotiated [and] supported on a bipartisan basis, including” the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, “which was renegotiated during the first Trump administration.”
The congressman continued, “it only makes sense to move forward in a way where we are focused on how we can make more things in the United States, but also recognize that we can’t make everything and we can’t go it alone, so we need to be working with close partners like Canada, and there’s no there’s no reason for this sort of trade war that only hurts our businesses and our ability to create jobs and have a thriving economy.”
“I also think, with respect to personal freedoms, in the wake of the Dobbs decision, we have to continue to take steps to re-establish Roe v. Wade as the law of the land and defend reproductive freedom,” Pappas said.
“I’m the only candidate in this race right now, and I think regardless of who the Republican is, we’re going to be fighting for the Women’s Health Protection Act and to make sure that we’re re-establishing the precedent that Roe set for more than half a century, which is broadly supported in New Hampshire,” he said.
LGBTQ issues
A co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, Pappas is the first openly gay member of Congress to represent New Hampshire. If elected, he would be the third out LGBTQ U.S. senator behind U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Laphonza Butler, who served from 2023 to 2024.
Trump, along with his Republican allies in Congress and appointees serving in his second administration, has undermined rights and protections for LGBTQ people on a variety of fronts, including by dismantling and defunding efforts to fight against HIV. Cuts to basic and clinical science research along with public health programs have been advanced by the president’s budget and the GOP lawmakers’ reconciliation package, as well as through the reorganization of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Now in the minority, House Democrats “will not be in the room negotiating, as much as we would love to tell the majority exactly how we feel about all these items,” Pappas conceded. At the same time, “to get a budget put in place and appropriations bills passed, you’ll need 60 votes in the Senate, which means you need some sort of bipartisan consensus, at least in that body,” which “could potentially be a difference maker in defending some of these programs that folks care about, that the president has sought to eliminate.”
“Services for people with HIV, access to health care, vital research — those are things that Americans broadly support,” the congressman said. “We’re going to stand up against it, and where there’s harm to people and important priorities, I’ll certainly be speaking out, and I know that members of the Equality Caucus will be taking that very seriously.”
“Many people in this administration,” Pappas said, “are not traditional Republicans and don’t support the same set of policies that we’ve seen even Republican presidents put in place,” like the PEPFAR initiative led by George W. Bush, “which has changed the trajectory of the treatment of HIV and AIDS around the world.”
“Now, they are attacking that program and its ability to provide care for people in some of the most vulnerable regions of the world, and it’s been reported that individuals in Africa have died as a result of not getting the treatments that they were counting on through that program,” the congressman noted.
He continued, “We really have a human responsibility to do whatever we can to meet the needs of people who are susceptible to disease or who have been exposed to it, and the fact that this administration is breaking with that long bipartisan tradition of research, of humanitarianism, I think is incredibly cruel, and it’s not what the United States should stand for.”
What has been especially frustrating, Pappas said, is the silence from Republicans in Congress including those who “have championed these programs for decades.”
“I don’t know what to say to that,” he said, except that “people need to be paying attention and we need to do everything possible to speak out and fight back against it” because “we can’t see an interruption in terms of the progress that’s been made in fighting disease and developing new therapies.”
Public health aside, when asked about how the Democratic Party should approach messaging on issues of transgender rights and gender identity, Pappas stressed that “Americans largely embrace equality” and people want others “to have the same rights and responsibilities.”
The congressman raised the Equality Act as an example — a bill that would protect Americans against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in areas from housing to employment, which was reintroduced last month with a press conference headlined by Pappas and top Democrats from both chambers of Congress.
Democrats should not shy away from advancing bills that advance “fairness and equality before the law,” he said, “especially at a time where we know that the LGBTQ community is being targeted by really cynical political attacks.”
“Where I come from, in New Hampshire, we’ve adopted protections for trans individuals in our state’s non discrimination statutes,” Pappas noted, “and so I think when you come from an environment like New Hampshire, you understand that people do respect their neighbors for their differences.”
He continued, “We’re a live and let live state, and so I think it’s really consistent with who we are to be tolerant and embrace people of different identities and orientations. That’s who we are as Granite Staters. And I think people recognize that in order to have a future where everyone can live a full and productive life, you need to provide people with equality before the law.”
Politics
Joe Biden diagnosed with ‘aggressive form’ of prostate cancer
The former president and his family are reviewing treatment options, according to a statement
According to a statement from his personal office on Sunday, former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones.
“Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms. On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone,” the statement said.
Biden and his family “are reviewing treatment options with his physicians,” the statement said. “While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management.”
“Cancer touches us all,” the former president posted on X Monday. “Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places. Thank you for lifting us up with love and support.”
Cancer touches us all. Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places. Thank you for lifting us up with love and support. pic.twitter.com/oSS1vGIiwU
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 19, 2025
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Cuban lawmakers to consider simplifying process for trans people to change IDs
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
