Sidebar

For months, President Trump avoided the novel coronavirus. He did this even without taking basic steps to prevent the virus’s spread, like wearing masks and staying away from large indoor crowds.But, last week, that changed. Trump told the American people via tweet very early Friday morning, that he had tested positive for the coronavirus. Later that day, he was hospitalized at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.On Monday, after he’d been administered a cocktail of steroids and therapeutic drugs, Trump left the hospital and returned to the White House.Yet questions about the severity of the president’s condition remain.Although Trump has tried to project the image of a president hard at work — posting videos and photos of himself clad in a full suit, repeatedly tweeting that he’s feeling great, declaring himself recovering — it’s hard for reporters and the public to know exactly where Trump’s health stands.But how much should the public know when it comes to the health and the fitness of our commander in chief? What are the responsibilities of the president — and his doctors — to be transparent about his health information? And how does that transparency factor into potential moves to transfer power when a president is incapacitated?Since Trump’s diagnosis, even as the president was hospitalized, Trump administration officials made it clear that there were no plans for Vice President Pence to assume even temporary authority as president.Yet the events of the past week have raised questions about how that process works — who decides? What happens if a president can’t consent to a transfer of power? What if his ability to govern is in question?On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, White House reporter David Nakamura discusses practices around the president’s health and safety and law professor and author of“Unable: The Law, Politics, and Limits of Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment” Brian Kalt explains how the 25th Amendment works.Related reading and episodesCovid-19 survivors see callousness, not compassion, in Trump’s bout with the virusVirus cases are surging in the U.S. Is our government better prepared now?What happens if Trump refuses to accept a loss?

President Trump is not exactly known for his adherence to Washington norms.And his ongoing rhetoric around perhaps the most significant norm of American democracy — the peaceful transition of power — brushes against centuries-old precedent.Though we’ve faced several electoral challenges in our country’s short history, presidential power has always passed peacefully from one commander in chief to the next.This year, though, Trump has declined to agree to accept the results of the 2020 election, whatever they may be.He’s relentlessly tried to sow doubt in the electoral process, baselessly attacked the security of mail-in balloting and suggested the outcome will be rigged.And again, on Tuesday, in an incredibly heated and contentious debate with Democratic nominee Joe Biden, during a major nationally televised event, Trump again questioned the legitimacy of the upcoming election and refused to agree to accept its results.We’ve asked quite a few “Can He Do That?” questions on this show over the past nearly four years, but this one is perhaps the most consequential: Can a sitting president of the United States refuse to concede? Can he refuse to leave office? And what happens if he discredits our elections, the foundation of our democracy, in the process?Trump’s persistence on this issue has really forced the question of what happens if he refuses to accept a loss, though it’s worth noting that most legal experts say it’s hard to envision Trump trying to stay in office in the case of a clear loss to Biden.But any lack of clarity around the results is likely to have consequences: perhaps litigation, perhaps false claims of victory, perhaps state level battles over electors.On this episode of the “Can He Do That?” podcast, Lawrence Douglas, a law professor at Amherst College and author of“Will He Go?: Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020” explores the potential for constitutional chaos after Election Day and lays out what legal and institutional mechanisms can stop American presidents from wrongfully holding on to power.Related reading and episodesTrump’s assault on election integrity forces question: What would happen if he refused to accept a loss?Two different stories of American unrestTrump suggested sending law enforcement to the polls. Can he do that?

The passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last week, has created a vacancy on the bench. President Trump and the Republicans have since taken steps toward quickly confirming a conservative replacement for Ginsburg, who was a liberal icon.Trump is expected to announce a nominee late this week, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has suggested confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee could begin mid-October.Republicans hope the Supreme Court fight will inject a last-minute boost into both Trump’s reelection bid and the battle for the Senate majority.Meanwhile, Democrats have vowed to fight in the hearings and on the Senate floor, citing precedent set by Senate Republicans who refused to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee during an election year. But beyond procedural tactics to slow the process, there may not be much that Democrats can do to stop Trump’s pick for a conservative justice from filling the seat on the court.Is such a speedy nomination and confirmation process unusual when it comes to new Supreme Court Justices? How much power does a president have to push through a confirmation?And as questions arise about how the Democrats might retaliate, including court packing, is changing the number of justices really possible? How much does the Constitution actually dictate?Plus, increasingly political confirmation hearings and the prominence of Supreme Court as an issue on the campaign trail have really added to a sense of a politicized judiciary. Taken together, does all of this compromise the independence of the highest court in the land?On this episode of the “Can He Do That?” podcast, we capture the evolution of our Supreme Court and how that history informs what’s happening in Congress and on the campaign trail today, in conversation with senior congressional correspondent Paul Kane and Lisa Holmes, associate professor of political science at the University of Vermont.Related reading and episodesRepublicans hope Supreme Court fight boosts Trump’s reelection bid, helps GOP hold Senate majority How can the Supreme Court maintain impartiality in America's modern political climate?The problems with pardon power

Reporter Seung Min Kim on how Trump’s refusal to acknowledge human-caused climate change affects the country’s wildfire management and response plans. Plus, environmental analysis professor Char Miller on who's really responsible for fire mitigation.

The Justice Department on Tuesday intervened in the defamation lawsuit brought by a woman who says President Trump raped her years ago, moving the matter to federal court and signaling it wants to make the U.S. government — rather than Trump himself — the defendant in the case. In this segment from "Post Reports," Matt Zapatosky talks about the unusual move, and where it fits into the larger story of Trump's Justice Department.

Jacob Blake was shot seven times in the back by a Kenosha, Wis., police officer in late August.Since that shooting, Kenosha has been the site of unrest, protests, vandalism and violence.Days after the protests and unrest began, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse traveled a short trip from his home to Kenosha where self-declared militia members and armed counterprotesters had been appearing. Rittenhouse was armed with a rifle. Later, authorities say Rittenhouse shot three protesters, killing two of them.President Trump has condemned the violence from those he calls“rioters” and“looters,” yet Trump suggested Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.Trump has emphasized what he calls his message of“law and order,” defending law enforcement, condemning protesters and insisting Democratic leaders, and Democratic nominee Joe Biden, are responsible for the country’s turmoil.Biden, meanwhile, has focused on a message of unity. He’s sought to strike a difficult balance between condemning violence on all sides of the political spectrum and acknowledging systemic racism in the country and in policing.The two candidates are painting very different pictures about the state of our country and the causes of unrest.On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, White House reporter Ashley Parker answers key questions: As we head toward the November election, how much are these two starkly different narratives a reflection of the divisions in our country? How much are they responsible for stoking those divisions? And are there any checks on what the U.S. president can say?Related reading and episodesTrump’s illuminating defense of Kyle RittenhouseHow an extraordinary election season affects Trump’s reelection chancesTrump’s response to unrest raises concerns among those trained to detect democratic regression

Faith in the U.S. electoral system is one of the most important fundamentals of this country’s democracy.And this year, it’s being tested in unprecedented ways.Some of those challenges are emerging from the rhetoric of the president himself. President Trump has discredited mail-in voting, suggested rampant voter fraud and said he might not accept the results of the election.Most recently, Trump has threatened to use law enforcement officers to patrol polling places.In an interview last week with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump said,“We’re going to have everything. We’re going to have sheriffs, and we’re going to have law enforcement, and we’re going to hopefully have U.S. attorneys and we’re going to have everybody, and attorney generals. But it’s very hard."The suggestion raised concerns about voter intimidation and voter suppression.And while reporting suggests the president isn’t actively making plans to send federal law enforcement to polls, it raised significant questions about whether he could, and the other ways his words could have implications for what Americans can expect at polling places in November.So can Trump actually do this? Can Trump send law enforcement to the polls on Election Day? And if not, are there consequences for our voting system when the president even threatens to do so?On this episode of“Can He Do That” podcast, election law expert Rick Hasen and reporter Rosalind Helderman explain what the RNC is planning for Election Day and how today’s laws apply.Related reading and episodesTrump’s suggestion of deploying law enforcement officials to monitor polls raises specter of voting intimidationPostal problems persist.(But your mail-in ballot is probably safe.)How an extraordinary election season affects Trump’s reelection chances

President Trump’s rhetoric about the Postal Service has grown bolder. He’s said that if he stops the Democrats from providing emergency funding to the Postal Service, it’s harder for them to process a surge in mail-in ballots. And according to Trump himself, he wants less mail-in voting, because he thinks too much vote by mail may cost him the election.Meanwhile, a new postmaster general has taken over the agency. Louis DeJoy, previously a logistics executive, was named to head the Postal Service in May, He’s also a major Republican donor.In his short time in the new role, DeJoy has upended the mail system. He has shaken up USPS leadership, ordered the removal of hundreds of high-speed mail-sorting machines, eliminated overtime hours for delivery workers and banned them from making extra trips for on-time delivery.The cumulative effect of Trump’s words and mail delivery slowdowns caused by DeJoy’s changes left many Americans uneasy about the ability of the Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots effectively this fall.Eventually, public pressure and support for the Postal Service led DeJoy on Tuesday to announce the agency will not continue the controversial changes that had already been underway at the organization until after the November election.On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, reporter Jacob Bogage answers key questions: Are Postal Service operations are no longer in jeopardy? Can the agency ensure all mail-in ballots can get where they need to go? And, most critically, has irreparable damage been done to America’s faith in our electoral system?Related reading and episodesDemocrats, election watchdogs see‘glaring hole’ in Postal Service pledge to roll back recent changesThe Postal Service is in dire need. Trump wants to block the loan that could save them.How Trump was able to shape the Postal Service board to enact a new agenda

Usually, in presidential election years of the past, August marks a new phase in election season. Conventions wrap up, rallies and events pick up on the campaign trail and candidates debate in front of large audiences, all leading up to the moment voters go to the polls.But this year, pretty much none of those things will happen in the way that we’re used to. The novel coronavirus fundamentally changed this election year. Many of the traditional events still populate the calendar between now and Election Day, but they will look a lot different: less door knocking, no mega rallies, an increase in mail-in voting, among lots of other tweaks.But the pandemic isn’t the only thing that makes this election unique. President Trump has disrupted political norms since his first run at the presidency. No president in modern times, perhaps ever, has been as dominant a figure on the national stage as Trump. He creates conversations and controversy.He’s also the incumbent. Historically, being the incumbent has been a major asset for presidential campaigns. But this year, with an election playing out against the backdrop of a pandemic, a major recession and a racial reckoning, that might not be the case.Can presidential election history really be a guide to understanding the 2020 election season? Trump beat the odds once before, might he do it again? And as we spend the next few months watching presidential campaign politics — assessing winning messages and losing strategies — how many lessons can we really draw from the past in these highly unusual times?On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, chief political correspondent Dan Balz explains how the pandemic has reshaped the 2020 election and what those changes mean for Trump’s prospects for winning the presidency again.Related reading and episodesThe pandemic has reshaped Election 2020 — and Trump’s prospects for reelectionConventions vs. covid-19: Trump’s push for a spectacle while the virus surgesHow America votes is inherently unpredictable. So why do polling?

If you’d never heard of TikTok before the coronavirus pandemic sent us all into our homes for months, you’ve probably heard of it now. With little to do at home, millions of Americans turned to TikTok to create and watch short, fun videos of mostly teenagers mostly dancing, lip syncing or pranking their parents.While this social video app may seem harmless when you’re somehow mindlessly scrolling through hours of 30-second antics, the Trump administration insists it might not be so harmless after all.See, TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance. For months, the Trump administration has worried that the Chinese government could gain access to to the user data of Americans who use the app. The United States has also raised concerns over the potential for Chinese censorship on TikTok.Late last week, in response to all of this, President Trump said that he planned to ban TikTok altogether — that he would outright ban a very popular social media app used by 100 million Americans. So, naturally, many of our listeners asked,“Can he do that?”It turns out, that answer might be moot. Because, in typical Trump fashion, pretty soon after he threatened the ban, the president changed his mind.On Sunday, Trump backtracked and said he might not ban the app altogether. Instead, he might force ByteDance to sell its U.S. portion of TikTok. Microsoft confirmed that it is in talks with ByteDance to buy those U.S. assets, and the president says the two companies have 45 days to come to a deal.So, how does the president have the power to force a foreign company to sell a portion of itself? And TikTok is a social media tool — a speech tool — used by individual Americans … how does that complicate the president’s power over it? Plus, and perhaps most critically, is TikTok a serious national security threat to the United States?On this episode of the“Can He Do That?” podcast, technology reporter Rachel Lerman explains why the president wants to block TikTok and James Lewis, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explains how he can take steps to change things for the Chinese-owned app.Related episodesTrump’s latest trade war escalation: Ordering businesses out of China. Can he do that?Trump threatened to"take a look" at Google for"rigged" results. Can he do that?Does Trump’s urging China to investigate the Bidens complicate the impeachment inquiry?