SACRAMENTO, CA — Former Los Angeles Mayor and current California gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa has publicly alleged that Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra were involved in concealing former President Joe Biden’s mental and physical decline during his time in office.

Villaraigosa, a Democrat, made the claim amid a heated California gubernatorial race. Becerra, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, is also a candidate, while speculation continues over a potential Harris bid. The race comes as current Governor Gavin Newsom reaches the end of his second and final term, per California’s two-term limit.

In a statement referencing recent reporting and excerpts from the book Original Sin, Villaraigosa stated:

“What I’ve seen in news coverage and excerpts from the new book ‘Original Sin’ is deeply troubling. At the highest levels of our government, those in power were intentionally complicit or told outright lies in a systematic cover up to keep Joe Biden’s mental decline from the public.”

Both Harris and Becerra previously served as California Attorney General. Villaraigosa emphasized their past leadership roles, stating:

“Now, we have come to learn this cover up includes two prominent California politicians who served as California Attorney General – one who is running for Governor and another who is thinking about running for Governor.”

He added:

“Those who were complicit in the cover up should take responsibility for the part they played in this debacle, hold themselves accountable, and apologize to the American people. I call on Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra to do just that – and make themselves available to voters and the free press because there’s a lot of questions that need to be answered.”

Becerra responded in a statement, saying:

“It’s clear the President was getting older, but he made the mission clear: run the largest health agency in the world, expand care to millions more Americans than ever before, negotiate down the cost of prescription drugs, and pull us out of a world-wide pandemic. And we delivered.”

Kamala Harris has not issued a public response. Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to the offices of Harris and the Bidens but had not received a reply at the time of publication.

The allegations come as discussions about Biden’s cognitive and physical health continue. Earlier this month, during an appearance on The View, Biden dismissed claims of cognitive decline during his presidency.

In related developments, Biden’s personal office recently confirmed that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer characterized by a high Gleason score and metastasis to the bone.

Villaraigosa’s comments are the latest in a growing list of concerns raised within the Democratic Party about leadership transparency and accountability in the final years of the Biden administration.

A newly released interim report from Senator Ron Johnson’s office claims top U.S. health officials in the Biden administration withheld critical information in early 2021 about potential heart-related side effects associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The 54-page report alleges that despite receiving multiple warnings about the risks—particularly cases of myocarditis and related conditions in young people—federal agencies delayed issuing formal alerts for several months.

According to the report, health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were informed as early as February 2021 about international concerns, including an attempt by Israel’s Ministry of Health to raise alarm over roughly 40 myocarditis cases tied to the Pfizer vaccine. At that time, Israel’s vaccination campaign was further along than the U.S.’s, offering an early view of potential adverse effects.

In response to Israel’s outreach, FDA officials acknowledged limitations in existing data and asked for further information. However, despite growing domestic reports of heart inflammation—more than 158 cases by April—the agencies did not formally update the public until late June. The vaccine was nonetheless approved for adolescents in May.

By late May, internal deliberations began over whether to issue a Health Alert Network (HAN) message, which is typically used by the CDC to quickly notify clinicians and public health departments of emerging health threats. Some officials reportedly feared sounding “alarmist.” Others questioned whether the data truly warranted a full-scale warning. Ultimately, the HAN alert was shelved in favor of a more subdued website notice issued on May 28.

In the interim, internal talking points continued to describe the condition as rare and urged continued vaccination. The official FDA label for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines wasn’t updated to reflect the myocarditis risk until June 25.

The report, while critical, notes that many individuals who developed myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis after vaccination experienced a resolution of symptoms, a finding consistent with CDC data.

Senator Johnson, a frequent critic of the federal pandemic response, has argued that transparency was lacking during this period. “The full extent of the Biden administration’s failure to immediately warn the public about all COVID-19 vaccine adverse events must be completely exposed,” the report concludes.

Health officials involved in the decisions, including then-FDA commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock and then-CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, have not yet publicly responded to the findings in the interim report.

The release comes amid ongoing political scrutiny over pandemic-era decision-making and the future of public health communications in the wake of COVID-19. The Biden administration and health agencies have consistently maintained that the benefits of mRNA vaccines outweigh the risks, particularly during the height of the pandemic when COVID-19 posed a significant public health threat.

As investigations continue, Johnson’s subcommittee says it plans to further examine the internal communications and decision-making processes of the nation’s top health agencies.

Biden Administration’s Nicotine Ban: A Move Toward Regulation or a Boost for Cartels?

In a controversial move during its final days, the Biden administration is advancing a proposal to drastically lower nicotine levels in cigarettes, effectively banning traditional products on the market. While the administration frames the measure as a step toward reducing smoking addiction, critics argue it will backfire, fueling black markets and empowering criminal cartels.

Regulatory Shift with Broad Implications

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that its proposed rule to establish maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes has completed regulatory review. The measure is part of a broader effort to make cigarettes less addictive, potentially shaping one of the most impactful tobacco policies in U.S. history.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf previously stated that the initiative aims to “decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit.” However, opponents warn that this policy could create new public safety and economic challenges.

A “Gift” to Organized Crime

Critics of the proposed regulation, including former ATF official Rich Marianos, are sounding the alarm. Marianos described the plan as a “gift with a bow and balloons to organized crime cartels,” arguing that it would open the floodgates for illegal tobacco trafficking.

Mexican cartels, Chinese counterfeiters, and Russian mafias are well-positioned to exploit the demand for high-nicotine cigarettes. These groups, already entrenched in smuggling operations, would likely ramp up efforts to meet consumer demand. This shift would not only enrich organized crime but also compromise public health by introducing unregulated, potentially more harmful products into the market.

Unintended Consequences for Public Health

While the FDA’s goal is to reduce smoking rates, experts suggest the policy may have the opposite effect. Smokers could resort to “compensatory smoking,” consuming more cigarettes to achieve their desired nicotine levels. This behavior increases exposure to harmful chemicals like tar, negating the intended health benefits.

Additionally, the regulation could discourage smokers from transitioning to safer alternatives, such as vaping or nicotine replacement therapies. By removing higher-nicotine products from the legal market, the government risks alienating individuals who might otherwise seek healthier pathways to quitting smoking.

National Security and Economic Concerns

Beyond health implications, the nicotine ban raises significant national security issues. A 2015 State Department report highlighted the role of tobacco trafficking in funding terrorist organizations and criminal networks. Reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes could expand this illicit market, providing criminal groups with a lucrative new revenue stream.

Moreover, law enforcement agencies could face increased pressure as they work to combat tobacco smuggling alongside ongoing efforts to address opioid and fentanyl trafficking. This strain on resources could compromise broader public safety initiatives.

Balancing Public Health and Freedom

The proposed nicotine reduction also ignites debates over personal freedom. While reducing addiction is a laudable goal, critics argue that adults should retain the right to make their own choices regarding tobacco use. For many, the measure feels like government overreach, imposing a paternalistic approach to health regulation.

As the Biden administration pushes forward with its nicotine reduction proposal, the policy’s broader implications remain uncertain. While intended to curb addiction and promote public health, critics warn of significant risks, including empowering organized crime, increasing smoking rates, and straining law enforcement resources.

A more balanced approach—focused on education, harm reduction, and access to cessation resources—may better address smoking-related challenges without creating new societal harms.