NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell faced widespread criticism on social media after praising the Biden administration’s role in President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace deal, with users calling her response “delusional” and questioning her journalistic objectivity.
The controversy erupted on October 11, 2025, when former Secretary of State Anthony Blinken posted a lengthy thread on X/Twitter commending Trump’s administration for the Gaza ceasefire agreement. In his posts, Blinken noted that Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza adopted and built on the plan the Biden administration had developed after months of discussions with Arab partners, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority.
Mitchell responded to Blinken’s thread by thanking him for the previous administration’s efforts. She acknowledged Blinken’s work over two years leading up to the peace agreement, creating what she described as the basis for the deal once both sides were prepared to compromise. Mitchell expressed hope that the compromise would hold.
The Gaza ceasefire deal, announced by Trump the previous week, marked a significant development in the ongoing conflict. The temporary pause in fighting led to the release of hostages on both sides, representing the first phase of a proposed plan to bring peace to the region. Trump subsequently traveled to Egypt for a summit with other world leaders, where he and others signed a peace agreement.
Mitchell’s tweet praising the Biden administration’s role in Trump’s achievement drew immediate backlash from social media users and commentators. Critics accused her of attempting to give credit to the previous administration for a deal negotiated and implemented under Trump’s presidency.
Joe Concha of The Hill highlighted the unusual nature of Mitchell’s response, pointing out that she thanked Blinken and Biden rather than current Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump for the Gaza peace deal. Another critic described Mitchell’s praise of Blinken for Middle East peace as being so delusional it was beyond parody.
Additional criticism came from Adam Johnson, who accused Mitchell of helping Biden officials whitewash their record on the conflict. Johnson characterized Mitchell’s response as total revisionism, noting that Hamas had agreed to the basic framework in late 2023, but both Biden and Trump administrations had failed to apply sufficient pressure on Israel to agree to the terms.
Other social media users expressed disappointment with Mitchell’s journalistic approach. One critic described the state of journalism as sad and suggested Mitchell should be embarrassed by her response. Another user accused her of abandoning neutrality by actively supporting Biden administration officials.
The incident highlighted ongoing tensions between media coverage and political partisanship, with critics arguing that Mitchell’s response demonstrated bias rather than objective reporting. Users questioned whether a neutral reporter should be actively promoting the previous administration’s role in a current president’s diplomatic achievement.
Mitchell’s controversial tweet came during a period of transition for the veteran journalist. She had previously announced plans to step down from her daily MSNBC show “Andrea Mitchell Reports” after 17 years, with her final broadcast occurring on February 7, 2025. Despite leaving the anchor chair, Mitchell continues her role as NBC News’ Chief Washington Correspondent and Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent.
The 78-year-old journalist’s departure from daily anchoring duties followed her October 2024 announcement that she wanted more time for field reporting rather than studio work. Mitchell indicated her desire to focus on storytelling and connecting with people face-to-face, particularly given ongoing foreign conflicts and political divisions.
As of the reporting, Mitchell had not responded to the online backlash regarding her praise of the Biden administration’s role in Trump’s Gaza peace deal. The criticism reflects broader debates about media coverage and political bias in journalism, with users questioning the appropriateness of crediting a previous administration for a successor’s diplomatic achievements.
