Biden’s 70-Hour Leaked Tapes Released!

Man speaking at podium with American flags behind.

Seventy hours of a former president talking to his ghostwriter could redraw the line between privacy, privilege, and the public’s right to know.

Story Snapshot

Biden plans to fight the Department of Justice over releasing about 70 hours of recordings with his ghostwriter [5].
Special Counsel Robert Hur said the ghostwriter deleted some audio after the probe began but declined obstruction charges, citing insufficient intent evidence [5].
Hur’s report says Biden read classified material “nearly verbatim” to his ghostwriter at least three times, while also finding no prosecutable intent to share secrets [5].
House Judiciary subpoenaed the ghostwriter after he failed to provide recordings and transcripts voluntarily [4].

A legal knife fight over tapes that could change how presidents write history

Former President Joe Biden is preparing to intervene in court to stop the Department of Justice from releasing roughly seventy hours of audio recorded with his ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer, during memoir sessions, according to public reporting that the push is underway now under a new administration [5]. The recordings sit at the junction of three combustible issues: executive privilege, classified material handling, and political score-settling across administrations. The stakes reach beyond Biden. Future presidents will watch to see whether intimate historical interviews become public fodder or remain protected candid conversations.

Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report provides the spine of the factual record. Hur concluded that Biden read from notebooks containing classified passages to an uncleared ghostwriter at least three times, sometimes nearly verbatim, while also finding evidence insufficient to prove Biden intended to share classified information or that the ghostwriter intended to obstruct by deleting files [5]. That duality—serious handling concerns but no prosecutable intent—creates fertile ground for both sides to claim vindication. Prosecutors closed the book; politicians kept writing in the margins [5].

The ghostwriter’s deletions: incriminating act or clumsy housekeeping

Hur reported that after learning a special counsel had been appointed in January 2023, the ghostwriter deleted audio files of his conversations with Biden, sending them to his computer’s recycle bin [5]. Hur still declined obstruction charges, citing “plausible, innocent reasons” like privacy and hacking concerns, and emphasizing that the ghostwriter preserved transcripts with statements that were unfavorable to Biden, which cut against an intent to impede an investigation [5]. Axios separately reported the ghostwriter told investigators he had concerns about hacking and did not believe he possessed classified information [2]. The line between poor judgment and criminal intent stayed intact—but thin.

Congress escalated anyway. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan subpoenaed the ghostwriter after he did not provide requested recordings or transcripts, signaling lawmakers’ intent to obtain and publish what investigators had, at least in part, already recovered [4]. Congressional oversight has a legitimate role when potential mishandling of national security material intersects with public trust. Still, common sense rooted in conservative values draws a distinction between necessary oversight and performative exposure that complicates future governance. If every private presidential interview becomes a campaign ad, fewer presidents will tell the truth to history.

The privilege puzzle: privacy, national security, and precedent

Executive privilege does not fit neatly over these tapes, which predate the presidency yet touch official matters. Biden previously asserted executive privilege to block release of his interview audio with Hur while in office, and the Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland enforced that claim against Congress [6]. The present fight concerns different recordings, different time periods, and a different administration now pressing for release [5]. Courts often balance transparency against confidentiality to protect effective executive function. That balance gets messier when the material is part memoir workshop, part potential evidence.

The case for release rests on Hur’s finding that the recordings had “significant evidentiary value,” including Biden’s post-vice presidency discussions about classified notebooks and his 2017 comment about finding “classified stuff downstairs” [5]. The case for restraint leans on Hur’s declination decisions, the absence of proved criminal intent, and the chilling effect on accurate historical documentation if candid source material becomes political ammunition on demand [5]. Both frames can be true at once; judges must decide which truth matters more in law.

What a smart resolution looks like for trust and national security

Courts could order a targeted, redacted release that protects active national security equities while revealing passages essential to assessing government conduct. Limited disclosure of segments tied to classified handling—paired with robust protection of personal or unrelated narrative content—would honor oversight without turning a memoir’s raw audio into a political reality show. Hur’s declination does not erase the public interest in how leaders handle secrets; it narrows it to what actually bears on statecraft rather than gossip [5].

Biden Moves to Block Release of 70 Hours of Audio Recordings With Ghostwriter https://t.co/p6uykSoiyY

— Rachel Morse (@rm36863307) May 10, 2026

Americans deserve a standard that treats the presidency as an institution, not a season of television. Demand transparency where government power and classified decisions are at issue. Defend confidentiality where candor builds the historical record without jeopardizing security. If the court threads that needle, future presidents will still speak freely to the historians and writers who tell our nation’s story—and they will still be held to account when that story crosses into the people’s business [4][5].