Ken Salazar, the former U.S. ambassador to Mexico and a onetime senator, says he seriously thought about running for president after the chaotic 2024 debate and has been blunt about the border failures inside the Biden administration. He pushed for a border czar, urged officials to call the situation what it was, and later criticized how Democrats handled a crisis that reshaped that election. Salazar also developed a “borderlands” policy pitch and quietly advised potential Democratic hopefuls even as he chose not to run himself.
Salazar told himself, “I should run for president,” after watching what he calls a disastrous debate performance by President Biden. That moment convinced him the party needed different leadership and sharper messaging on migration. He went so far as to recruit a team and draft a platform, preparing for a contingency no one else in his circle seemed to consider seriously.
Inside the administration Salazar says officials were using the word crisis in private but avoided it publicly, and he blames that mismatch for political fallout. “There was political failure to understand the reality of the crisis at the border, and the political consequence it would have on Democrats in the 2024 election.” He wanted clear, blunt language and fast action, and he expected colleagues to sound the alarm the same way he did.
When he pushed then-Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to adopt the word “crisis,” Mayorkas reportedly replied, “Ken, I have a lot on my plate already. I’m about to be impeached for all this border stuff. The Republicans have it out for me.” That response, Salazar implies, showed a focus on politics and process instead of the urgent reality people were living at the border. From a conservative viewpoint, it looked like confusion and blame-shifting when leadership needed to lead.
Salazar urged creation of a formal border czar and later criticized the role that was assigned, saying it produced little effect. “But sadly, her designation in this position was having no effect on migration flows,” he wrote about Vice President Harris’s efforts. He argued the job was miscast as a long-term root-causes mission rather than an immediate, operational crackdown that would actually stem crossings.
“[Harris] had been placed in charge of getting at the ‘root causes’ of migration, but many felt she had been ineffective,” he continued, noting that proximity to power did not translate into results. From a Republican perspective, that felt like another example where political symbolism replaced policy that would secure the border. Voters watching chaos at the crossing points were demanding solutions, not spin.
Salazar praised a later decision to tighten border controls but insisted it came too late to help Democrats politically. “This should have been a moment of vindication — after all, American voters were demanding action on the border — but it was too late, and images of an out-of-control border would dominate the closing months of the presidential election.” Those images, he says, became the defining memory for many voters who wanted safety and order restored.
Despite drafting a platform and recruiting advisers, Salazar opted not to enter the race when it mattered most, citing how his party handled the succession and primary process. He criticized the decision to rally behind a single nominee rather than opening the field, calling it a strategic mistake. That move closed the door on a possible corrective candidacy and left internal debates unresolved.
Salazar has since been quietly pitching what he calls a “borderlands” platform, arguing the immigration system is broken and must be fixed. He has briefed and met with a handful of elected Democrats on the idea and plans to carry the proposal to more leaders. From the Republican angle, his warnings and policy focus confirm what critics long argued: border mismanagement costs votes and national security.
He remains a figure who saw the crisis early and tried to push change from within, even if his route stopped short of a campaign. His book and private talks lay out a critique of the party’s response that conservatives will use to argue for tougher approaches going forward. The debate over border policy isn’t over, and Salazar’s account fuels calls for clearer priorities and firmer action.
