Kamala Harris gaslit by her own campaign team. Makeup before internal aide meetings and fluorescent tape to guide an aging Joe Biden. Donald Trump’s 180 from an early-voting skeptic to an early-voting evangelist. A tearful, pre-assassination premonition from Trump’s chief of staff.
These are among the revelations from “Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House,” where journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes uncover never-before-seen details and strategies that shaped the 2024 presidential election. USA TODAY spoke with the authors about the most surprising takeaways and reactions since the book was published April 1.
Perhaps the most revelatory insight from “Fight” is the lead-up and aftermath to Harris’ succession as the Democratic nominee. Nancy Pelosi’s involvement was paramount for the switch, with the authors telling USA TODAY it felt “Shakespearean,” like a “knifing,” or “a real Brutus moment.” Allen and Parnes outline the chaos that followed Biden stepping down, including Barack Obama scrambling to set up an open convention to “circumvent” Harris and Biden insisting there be “no daylight” between them, even as the White House staff gave the go-ahead to push for her victory. While Harris felt loyalty to Biden, he did not feel the same to her, the authors say.
“I think a lot of people who will read this book will be surprised and, on the left, be saddened at the degree to which Joe Biden put himself above the interests of his party and ultimately … from the Democratic point of view, the interests of the country,” Allen says.
The authors anticipate “Fight” could be a “playbook” for the 2028 presidential election, as Democrats (but also Republicans) learn from the chaos of the 2024 election.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
What was the most surprising revelation you found in the process of reporting and writing this book?
Parnes: I honestly was shocked that they (Harris and Democrats) thought they were going to win, and the fact that her campaign had essentially telegraphed a win to her. We have this really big moment in the book, which I think is probably the biggest bombshell, which is that her own campaign gaslit her.
Allen: I think the degree to which Joe Biden clung to every vestige of power and influence, at the expense of Kamala Harris’s campaign, was surprising to me. We revealed for the first time in this book the actual conversation that went on between them when he passed the baton, and he was not ready to endorse her the day that he stepped out, and she had to push him repeatedly to make the endorsement.
What are other people telling you surprised them most after reading the book?
Allen: One of the really cool things about this book so far is that everybody who reads it has a different kind of like, “Oh my God” moment. Some of them were common, but the reaction that we have gotten has been just overwhelming in terms of how many surprises there are for readers.
Whether you’re talking about Biden or Harris or Trump or Susie Wiles, the Trump campaign manager who has sort of a premonition about him being shot that we report for the first time, or you’re talking about Pelosi or Obama. I mean, all of these – I was going to say characters, but they’re real. They’re real people who have these very sort of dramatic motivations.
You say in the book senior White House officials became aware in 2023 of signs that President Biden appeared to be slowing down and having difficulties. That was a year before the election. Why didn’t they do anything to stop him from running again?
Parnes: They felt like he had had a successful first term. I think he really wanted to run again. We detail in the book that Mike Donilon, one of his closest advisers, says, “Look, it’s hard to step away from the house and the plane and the chopper.” I think this was a guy who wanted to run for president his entire political career, just about, finally gets it and has difficulty letting go of it.
Allen: There was never a discussion about whether he was going to run, never a real discussion. He was determined to run, and the people who would, in theory, try to dissuade him, work for him.
There’s the flaw of Biden not seeing his own increasing frailty, but there is also the systemic flaw of who could tell him that and remain close to him. And the answer is, I don’t think any of these people thought they could tell him that and stay in the inner circle.
Some of America perceives it to be a cover-up. Is that what happened?
Allen: There was definitely an effort to cover for him. I think the reason that we don’t use the term “cover-up” is simply because it connotes a criminal conspiracy. I don’t think we have evidence of crimes that were committed.
The one unanswered question that the Democratic party refused to reckon with is, how is it possible that he can get out of the race effectively because he is no longer capable of running for president, and yet he remains in office? The idea that he no longer had the capacity to be a candidate, but somehow had the capacity to be president, I think is irreconcilable for a lot of people.
Whose counsel led to Biden making the historic move to step out of the race? Was it Obama or Pelosi?
Parnes: Both, but more so Pelosi.
She goes on “Morning Joe” and says, famously, he has a decision to make … and the reaction inside the campaign in that moment was like, “F you Nancy.” They were all so upset. And I think that was the moment that really changed it all. Of course, she’s working the phones privately and hearing from colleagues, but to go out there and take such a stand. She felt like she needed to do it on the show that he watches every morning. I mean, it was a real knifing.
Allen: That’s Shakespearean. The chapter title is “Et tu, Nancy?”
Why was there so much internal animosity toward Kamala Harris from the Biden team?
Allen: It dates back to that 2020 race. The Biden family never really got over her attacking him on stage over busing, basically suggesting that he was racist. It continued on through the first couple of years of the presidency. I think Biden and Harris themselves got along pretty well, but there was a lot of animosity between the West Wing and the Vice President’s office.
Once that (2024) debate occurs, and Biden is in trouble, and the donors are choking off money his inner circle basically makes the decision that in order for him to keep his head above water, he needs to drown her.
Harris, I think, always felt loyalty to Biden. Biden did not feel that same loyalty to her. Once he steps away from the race, he doesn’t really step away. He’s constantly in her ear about her not throwing his legacy under the bus to try to win. He doesn’t understand, or is unwilling to accept, that once he gives up the nomination to her, she’s the hope of the Democratic Party.
You report that Wiles confided in tears that she was worried about an assassination attempt weeks before Butler, Pennsylvania. If she had that premonition, why do you think more precautions weren’t taken?
Allen: A lot of mistakes were made in Butler, and as a nation, we narrowly escaped the tragedy of a major nominee for president and former president being killed. And that’s no small thing. If anything, it’s been understated in the public discussion.
But I don’t think she thought in that moment there was a specific, credible threat to him that will be followed through on that means that we need to, like, bulk up our security. I think what she more meant was, what more can this guy face? What is the next terrible thing that could happen? And her mind went to that place of him being physically in danger, potentially.
Parnes: I don’t think anyone could have anticipated how the turn of events and how this election turned out. And that’s sort of why we wrote the book in the first place. It was a completely unprecedented election with twists and turns, things that I think we’ll never see again in our lifetimes.
