Biden Trolls Wall Street Journal for Railroad Labor Editorial After Strike Averted: ‘Thanks for Your Concern’

·2-min read

President Joe Biden took a less traditional approach to a critical Wall Street Journal editorial that questioned his response to the railroad labor deal after the strike was avoided by trolling the publication on Twitter.

“Thanks for your concern, @wsj,” Biden tweeted, alongside a photo of himself reading the WSJ editorial in the Oval Office. “To answer your question: yes, the trains are running on time.”

The editorial, titled “Is Biden Working on the Railroad Unions?” mocked the president’s relationship with labor unions, saying “You’d think all of the President’s favors to Big Labor over two years would be enough to avert a railway strike.”

Also Read:
Late Night Hosts Pile on Mike Lindell’s Phone Seizure at Hardee’s: ‘Not Sure You Wanna Go to Jail Being Known as The MyPillow Guy’

“President Biden touts himself as a dear friend of labor unions, and he and Democrats in Congress have authorized trillions of dollars in new spending and wage mandates on private business to prove it,” the editorial, published Wednesday, said. “But we’re about to find out how much sway Mr. Biden really has with Big Labor as the White House attempts to head off a destructive national strike by railway workers.”

The dispute between railroad companies and labor unions originated from proposed accommodations for sick leave and over-scheduling to which the companies did not agree. Since then, railroad companies and unions came to a tentative agreement Thursday morning that will avoid the strike that was could have begun Friday, according to The New York Times. Despite, the WSJ’s critique of Biden, The Times notes that “the White House has sought to avoid a work stoppage”

Many Twitter users were happy with Biden’s clap back, with one user tweeting “Spicy Biden is my favorite Biden” and another writing, “Just [love] that we have a president that can answer with decorum.”

Check out more reactions for Biden trolling the WSJ: