Trump considered a military coup: Would he have gotten away with it? – Salon
It is now a public fact that Donald Trump and his cabal, including Republican members of Congress, attempted a coup on Jan. 6, 2021. This de facto conspiracy was sophisticated, multidimensional and nationwide in scale, and included what became a terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol. We know that Donald Trump was aware of at least some details of this plot and was involved in its planning and execution.
To deny these obvious facts is to either be a believer in the Big Lie and supporter of Trump and the Republican Party's war on American democracy or to be in an extreme state of willful denial. As a practical matter, it is much the same thing.
Within a few weeks, the House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, will finally hold televised public hearings. Their primary task will be to explain to the American people how serious the events of that day actually were and to establish a case that Donald Trump and his co-conspirators should be punished for their crimes.
RELATED:Lt. Col. Alex Vindman: How Trump's coup attempt encouraged Putin's Ukraine invasion
One question that demands much more public attention than it has gotten is how close Donald Trump came to invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring martial law, or to using other presidential emergency powers in an effort to nullify the 2020 election. In the weeks and days before Election Day, military and other national security leaders publicly sounded the alarm through editorials, interviews and other means that the Trump regime might try to order the armed forces to intervene on his behalf. That such figures would feel the need to declare that they were loyal to the Constitution, and not to a particular political leader, is almost unprecedented in American history.
Because of a combination of normalcy bias, cowardice, and outright denial about Trump and his cabal's obvious plans, the mainstream news media and most other public voices did not give these unprecedented warnings the sustained attention they merited. As a result, the American people still do not properly understand how close they came to losing their democracy on Jan. 6, 2021. That danger has only increased since then as the Republicans and their larger movement have escalated their plans to overthrow the country's multiracial democracy.
To discuss this urgent question and others, I recently spoke with Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center's Liberty & National Security Program and a senior practitioner fellow at the University of Chicago's Center for Effective Government. Sheis an expert on presidential emergency powers, government surveillance and government secrecy. Herwriting has been featured in theNew York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal,USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Atlantic, the New Republic and elsewhere. She has also appeared as a frequent guest on MSNBC, CNN and NPR.
In this conversation, Goitein details various scenarios through which Trump could have declared a "national emergency," perhaps including martial law, as a way of remaining in power and discusses whether that gambit would ultimately have worked. Thepresident of the United States, she explains, has access to immense powers in a time of national emergency, many of which are secret and not subject to any effective oversight from Congress or the courts.
It is also publicly known that Trump wanted the military to use lethal force to suppress the marches and other protests that took place across the country in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Goitein explores what would most likely have happened if Trump had given such an order. Shealso shares her concerns about America's current democracy crisis and her perception that the events of Jan. 6 are part of a much larger plan to impose a type of "competitive authoritarian" system in place of genuine electoral democracy.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
How do you feel about this moment, with America's democracy crisis and all the other challenges facing this country?
I'm worried, because after the transition to the Biden administration it seemed that people understood there was work to be done before the next presidential election to address some of the weak points in our system that are vulnerable to a leader with autocratic impulses. It also seemed that people understood that what happened with Trump was not necessarily a one-time aberrant occurrence, that there was a real danger of such a movement to undermine democracy trying such things again. Notice I said "movement" and not "moment." We would be seeing it again in future elections.
There seemed to be a decent level of understanding that meant we had to take steps to shore up the guardrails of democracy. I've heard the phrase "guardrails of democracy" a lot. But I don't see those guardrails being strengthened fast enough. I also don't see the urgency and priority being placed on that by either members of Congress or the Biden administration. That's what worries me, because we are running out of time.
How do you make sense of that lack of urgency?
I think there is a theory at work where if the Biden administration shows the American people that democracy can work for them, such an outcome will be the best thing that can be done to push back against anti-democratic forces. Thus, the priority is on laws and policies that will increase the well-being of Americans in their everyday lives. I support that. I believe that is an important part of the equation. I also believe that outcome is worth advancing for reasons totally unrelated to saving our democracy.
There are people in the United States, especially since COVID, who are in dire need of help from the government and some kind of social safety net. But I do not think that can be a substitute for laws that make it harder for a president, and especially one who is a would-be autocrat, to consolidate power. I think it's a mistake to de-prioritize the latter in favor of the former. I don't know for sure that's what's happening, but it's a theory that would explain what we're seeing in terms of the administration's priorities.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
The Democratic leadership in Congress is not going to prioritize something that isn't a priority for the Biden administration. The Biden administration is not necessarily eager to pass laws that rein in its own powers during a term when there are so many crises. Whether that's COVID, or whether it's Russia's invasion of Ukraine, this is a time when it would take an administration with a very long view to embrace laws that would restrict the president's own power. Very few presidents think that way.
I do believe that if legislation that reformed emergency powers came onto President Biden's desk, he would sign it. I can't say that for other presidents, certainly not for the last president, Donald Trump. But that is very different from saying that Biden is going to force Congress to pass emergency powers reform. If it is not on the White House priority list, it is going to be very difficult to make that happen in Congress.
With so much happening in terms of the challenges to American democracy, what advice would you give to people about how to make sense of it all? What should they prioritize?
It would take an administration with a very long view to embrace laws that would restrict the president's power. Very few presidents think that way.
I'm an expert on civil liberties and national security, with a specific focus on presidential emergency powers. That is what I spend my time worrying about. That does not mean it's the only thing that anyone should be worried about, by any means. For example, my colleagues at Brennan Center who work on voting rights are being consumed by that work right now, as well they should. That is another area that the American people should be extremely worried about. There is an attack all around this country, by conservatives on the state and local level, on voting rights.
I understand that with so much going on at the same time, it can be hard to figure out what to make of it all. What I would say is: Do not let the worries become paralyzing. Pick something that you care about. Pick something that you think is important and do something about it.
Call your congressperson. When someone actually picks up the phone and calls their representatives in Congress, that gets noticed. Even today, with all the big money in politics, phone calls to a congressional office get noticed. Do some googling to see what local organizations are working on the issues that you care about.Try to be a force for preserving our democracy. It can seem overwhelming, but once you start biting off pieces of it and putting one foot in front of the other by taking steps to be part of the solution, that work can be very fulfilling.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
What were you thinking as you watched the events of Jan. 6, 2021?
I have never been so aware of watching history unfold. As I was watching the events that day, I kept thinking that whatever comes of this, the world and the United States of America are not going to be the same after this. I've never seen anything like what happened on Jan. 6. None of us have in this country. I was in awe. I wouldn't say I was frightened, because I was pretty sure I knew how it was going to end. I was certainly concerned for the safety and well-being of the people inside the Capitol. I was pretty sure that even a few thousand people attacking the U.S. Capitol were not going to keep President Trump in power.
Perhaps there was a part of me that was thinking, "OK, when people see this, they will understand the threat, and they will reject this. They will reject this anti-democratic movement because they will finally see it for what it is. Democracy means enough to most of us in this country that these people attacking the Capitol will finally be marginalized."
That really didn't happen. Republicans have embraced these anti-democracy forces.
It shows how serious the threat is. It also shows that we have to be just as serious in resolving it. Our democracy is under threat. That doesn't mean that our democracy is lost by any means. We should be scared, but as I said before, being scared shouldn't lull us or intimidate us to inaction. It's the opposite. We have to be just as fierce in our defense of democracy as its opponents are in attacking it.
What would have been the worst-case outcome on Jan. 6, with Trump attempting to stay in power. Could he have invoked the Insurrection Act or perhaps even staged a military coup?
There was a scenario where Trump tries to construe the transfer of power on Jan. 20 as an insurrection, and invokes the Insurrection Act to stop Biden from becoming president.
The worst-case scenario has nothing to do with emergency powers. The real worst-case scenario is that the president attempts a military coup, which is not legal. There is no emergency authority that gives the president the power to declare a military coup. We are extremely fortunate that Trump did not have the military on his side. Military leaders, including [acting] Defense Secretary Miller and the chair of the Joints Chiefs, Gen. Milley, were extremely concerned about the potential for misuse of the military around the time of the presidential election and were determined not to let that happen.
That is one of the country's democratic institutions and guardrails that held: Senior national security officials within the administration retained their loyalty to the Constitution and understood that was their first loyalty. It was a loyalty that went beyond any they might feel toward the president or to their party. That was one of the silver linings of Jan. 6.
A military coup is the worst thing that could have happened. Short of that, I do believe that President Trump could have invoked the Insurrection Act. In fact, I actually believe that on Jan. 6 there was an insurrection, so the Insurrection Act would have been appropriate if the purpose were actually to suppress the attack on the Capitol. But what might have happened instead is that President Trump could have invoked the Insurrection Act as a pretext to get the military involved for the wrong reasons.
There's also a scenario where the president, with or without an attack on the U.S. Capitol, could have somehow construed the transition of power on Jan. 20 itself as an insurrection. Trump could have said, "I won the election despite Congress' certification. Therefore any attempt by Joe Biden to take office is in fact an insurrection. I'm going to declare the Insurrection Act to put down the insurrection."
Obviously, that would have been a clear abuse of the Insurrection Act, and I believe the courts might well have put a stop to it. In any event, it wouldn't have worked in the sense that on Jan. 20, under the Constitution, Trump was no longer president. Even if he somehow managed to prevent President Biden from walking into the White House, he still would not have been president himself. At that point, Nancy Pelosi, as speaker of the House, would have been next in line.
My ultimate point is that there are no emergency powers, and certainly the Insurrection Act is not one of them, that would allow the president to remain in power when there's been an election and someone else has been elected.
Trump was attempting a "self-coup" or "legal coup." But by definition, a leader like Donald Trump does not respect the rule of law. The scenarios you outline seem to assume that the law holds, and that the president and his administration respect it.
It is entirely true that the rule of law means absolutely nothing to an autocrat. It matters in the sense that they need to keep in mind what they can get away with in the courts. They also need to keep in mind what they can get away with politically. If for no other reason than those, I think that the reason why Trump didn't do some of the things that were urged by people such as Michael Flynn was, at least in part, because those actions were so plainly unlawful.
There were various people who were urging Trump to invoke emergency powers to seize the voting machines. If there was in fact an emergency power that authorizes seizure of voting machines, do you think for a second that President Trump wouldn't have exercised it? Of course he would have. The reason he didn't is because there isn't any such power, and he didn't think he could get away with doing it. The other possibility is that there were people, high up in his administration, who knew that they could not get away with seizing the voting machines. Therefore, Trump and his administration did not try it.
What if Trump had ordered the military to seize the voting machines? Or if he had invoked the Insurrection Act? What do you think would have happened?
If Trump had ordered one of the senior officials in his administration to do something that was blatantly illegal, and potentially unconstitutional at the level of preventing a peaceful transition of power, I believe someone like Gen. Milley probably would have refused or resigned. Alternatively, he would certainly have refused, and possibly then been fired.
If there was in fact an emergency power that authorizes seizure of voting machines, do you think for a second that President Trump wouldn't have exercised it?
A future president might be a little more crafty than Trump about putting people in place ahead of time who would be willing to execute such unconstitutional and illegal orders. Ultimately, if Trump had ordered such measures, he would have faced resistance from within his administration. He would have to fire people and then get some other person in an acting position to implement the order, and then it would have gone to the courts.
I think the courts would have stopped a blatantly unlawful power grab. Yes, I know many people are skeptical about that. They will say, "These are Trump judges, and they'll do anything Trump wants them to do." But we know that's not true because after the 2020 election, Trump and his supporters filed upwards of 60 lawsuits in an attempt to invalidate the results in various places around the country. Every judge but one rejected those lawsuits. That includes not only many judges appointed by Republican presidents but several Trump appointees as well.
The courts would have stepped in. At that point, when the courts have said, "You can't do this, you have to stop," if the president continues it is no longer a legal coup. Then it is just a plain coup, meaning potentially a military coup, and then we're back to the fact that the people who were in charge of the military were not willing to go along with such a plan.
What emergency powers does a president actually have?
There are two categories of powers. The first are statutory emergency powers. These are the emergency powers that Congress has delegated to the president. These are public. You can read them and know what is permitted and what is not permitted. They're limited. The president, when he declares a national emergency, can avail himself of these statutory powers, but he can't do anything that's outside of those powers. This is particularly true in the national emergency context, which is governed by the National Emergencies Act. When the president declares a national emergency, that action unlocks powers that are contained in more than 120 different provisions of law. They all say some variation of: "In a national emergency, the president can do X." That means the president can do X, but not Y or Z.
That having been said, some of those powers available in an actual emergency are pretty alarming. They include the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which is what some Trump supporters suggested could authorize the seizure of voting machines. That law allows the president to essentially freeze any assets or prohibit any financial transactions in order to address a foreign threat. While the threat has to be at least partly coming from overseas, the assets that the president freezes can be assets held by Americans.
The IEEPA is extremely powerful because it basically allows the president to freeze any American's bank accounts and prohibit anybody else from engaging in transactions with that person. The president can do this simply by saying, "I think this person is associated with a foreign threat."
The president also has broad powers to shut down communications as well. Correct?
That would be the Communications Act, which allows the president to take over or shut down radio communications facilities during a national emergency. If a president declares a threat of war, he can go further and he can take over or shut down wire communications facilities. The Communications Act could conceivably be interpreted to allow the president to take over or shut down U.S.-based internet traffic. There are also emergency powers that allow the federal government to control domestic transportation.
There are also powers that do not require the declaration of an emergency. This would be the Insurrection Act, whichgives the president very broad discretion to deploy federal military forces as a domestic police force. This law is dangerously broad and outdated. The whole concept of using military troops as a domestic police force is really contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and to the traditions of this country. In general, using the military as a domestic police force is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act. But the Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, and it is written in such a broad and frankly confusing way that it gives the president a dangerous amount of power.
I grew up during the 1980s and the end of the Cold War and read a great deal about what would happen in the aftermath of a nuclear war. One of the things that was often referenced during movies and books about nuclear war were the secret emergency powers that a president has. These powers are very ominous and most American have no idea about them.
What you're worried about are the "claimed inherent emergency powers." Presidents for decades have claimed that the Constitution gives them all manner of inherent powers that are not spelled out, by virtue of them being deemed the commander in chief of the armed forces. There are supposedly these broad inherent powers, established and detailed for the most part in Department of Justice memos, many of which have never been seen. We don't actually know the full scope of what presidents believe their emergency powers to be.
Presidents for decades have claimed that the Constitution gives them all manner of "inherent powers" that are not spelled out. We don't actually know the scope of what presidents believe their emergency powers to be.
There are a set of documents known as Presidential Emergency Action Documents. These are drafts, directives and orders that are prepared in advance of a range of potential worst-case scenarios. They are ready for the president's signature if one such event was to happen. None of these Presidential Emergency Action Documents, these drafts, directives or orders, has ever been leaked or released. The only way we know what's in them is by secondary sources, including some official sources such as FBI memos and things of that nature which describe their content.
From those secondary sources, we know that, at least in the past, some of these documents purported to implement martial law and purported to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally. Some of them provided for the roundup and detention of Americans who were on a list of so-called subversives. Some of the actions contemplated in these documents are blatantly unconstitutional, but presumably somebody at the Department of Justice who rubber-stamped them was taking the position that there are inherent constitutional powers that the president has under Article 2 [of the Constitution] to take such measures.
To me, these unknown secret claims of emergency power are in some ways the scariest, because we have no idea how far they go. Even Congress doesn't have access to these documents.
It has been confirmed that Trump wanted the military to shoot protesters during the George Floyd protests. What would such an order have looked like? How would it have been translated down to troops on the ground?
I highly doubt that there's any Presidential Emergency Action Document that gives a president authority to order protesters to be shot. I do not believe there's even any claim to some sort of legal authority to do something like that. Essentially, if the president ordered the military to shoot protesters in the legs, that would clearly be an illegal order and members of the military would have an obligation to disobey it. These people aren't posing any threat, they're not being shot in self-defense. We should not imagine that emergency powers are so capacious that they would ever encompass something so blatantly unlawful. That's an order from the president that the troops would have to disobey.
I'm more worried about a scenario in which, let's say, there are Presidential Emergency Action Documents that provide for the imposition of martial law in a scenario where there is an insurrection. The term "insurrection" is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder in that scenario is a president who believes that he is entitled to stay in power no matter what, at that point a declaration of martial law would enable the military to take the place of civilian government.
Now, that's very different from what's in the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act allows the military to act in support of civilian authorities in order to suppress an insurrection or to quell domestic violence. The military remains subordinate to civilian authorities in that scenario. A scenario in which the military takes over the functions of civilian government is what would be commonly referred to as martial law.
What worries me is that there is no single statute that flatly prohibits martial law. In its absence, I could see a president and the Justice Department arguing that he has that inherent constitutional authority.
The Brennan Center has analyzed this question and has concluded that the president actually has no authority to invoke martial law. That's because Congress has ruled it out by virtue of enacting an extensive network of laws governing domestic deployment of the military. Martial law would be inconsistent with this network of laws. That said, there is no single statute that flatly prohibits martial law, and in its absence, I could see a president and a Department of Justice taking the position that the president has an inherent constitutional authority to declare martial law.
To me, that is a more realistic fear and a major potential concern, one that could be alleviated by Congress.
How do we find that balance, between making sure that a president has the necessary power and latitude to act in response to an emergency, and preventing the abuse of those powers by an autocratic leader?
Checks and balances. It is appropriate to give the president much more flexibility in times of crises, but that flexibility can't be boundless. It should be time-limited, and it should have checks built in to address instances of overreach. Those checks, for the most part, are the other branches of government, the courts and Congress. Any extension of emergency powers to the president should come along with the potential for meaningful judicial review, which means there have to be standards articulated that the court can look to. In my expert opinion, saying that the president can declare a national emergency whenever he wants is problematic. What one can do is come up with a basic definition of what an emergency is, and what an emergency isn't. That definition should not constrain or micromanage the president, but still give the courts some ability to step in.
If the president invokes the Insurrection Act or declares a national emergency and abuses that authority, right now the only way for Congress to stop the president is to pass a law by veto-proof supermajority. When you're talking about powers that are so potent and so vulnerable to abuse, there needs to be a more meaningful check than that. One of the reform proposals that has gained traction in Congress is to require a declaration of national emergency to terminate automatically after 30 days, unless Congress votes to approve it. That would give the president lots more flexibility when he needs it most in the immediate aftermath of a crisis, but then would allow Congress to step in and serve as a check against presidential overreach if the president takes things too far.
When I warn people about how dangerous Donald Trump was and is, and the extreme nature of the country's democracy crisis more generally, I inevitably receive emails and messages telling me to stop scaring people, that this is too frightening and is somehow counterproductive. Given what you have explored in this conversation and your work, what would you say to those people?
If they're scared by what I've said, I take that as a good sign. I don't want anyone to feel hopeless, and I think the trick to taking the edge off the fear is to take action. As I said before, I think when there is a problem that's frightening, as soon as you start doing something about that, it takes the fear and turns it into intention. I think that's a better solution than simply hiding your head in the sand. If you do that, you're going to find out that a lot more scary things happen when you do nothing than when you tackle the problem.
What is your diagnosis of American democracy right now?
I've never seen anything quite like this before. I can tell you what I've seen happen in other cases, but I cannot predict the future. The truth is, we haven't seen something like this in this country before. We know it's serious. We know that the patient requires immediate help, but we just don't know how it's going to end. That's up to us.
Read more on Jan. 6, 2021, and its aftermath:
Go here to see the original:
Trump considered a military coup: Would he have gotten away with it? - Salon
- Donald Trump reveals exclusively to The Post what he and Biden spoke about at DC meeting - New York Post - November 14th, 2024 [November 14th, 2024]
- Republicans win 218 US House seats, giving Donald Trump and the party control of government - The Associated Press - November 14th, 2024 [November 14th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Tells House Republicans He Won't Seek a Third Term Unless They 'Figure' Out a Way to Allow It - PEOPLE - November 14th, 2024 [November 14th, 2024]
- Tesla is not the only winner under Donald Trump - The Economist - November 12th, 2024 [November 12th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Jr. Opts Out of White House to Join 1789 Capital - Bloomberg - November 12th, 2024 [November 12th, 2024]
- Opinion | Americans ordered up Donald Trump. The world will foot the bill. - The Washington Post - November 12th, 2024 [November 12th, 2024]
- Opinion: Reflections from across The Pond on Donald Trump's re-election - Palm Beach Post - November 12th, 2024 [November 12th, 2024]
- How could Donald Trump target the LGBTQ+ community? Project 2025 is a ready blueprint for discrimination - The Conversation - November 12th, 2024 [November 12th, 2024]
- Donald Trump has sweeping plans for a second administration. Heres what hes proposed - The Associated Press - November 12th, 2024 [November 12th, 2024]
- UK minister grilled over tweet branding Donald Trump a self-confessed groper - POLITICO Europe - November 12th, 2024 [November 12th, 2024]
- South Korean president practising golf to prepare for future meetings with Donald Trump - The Guardian - November 12th, 2024 [November 12th, 2024]
- Kamala Harris and Donald Trump hold dueling rallies in swing-state Michigan as it happened - The Guardian US - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- I visited a small, struggling, climate-ravaged town in Louisiana. Why is Donald Trump certain to win here? - The Guardian US - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- Donald Trump, Not at All Worried About Losing the Election, Demands Kamala Harris Be Forced Off the Campaign - Vanity Fair - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Just Insulted Every Autoworker in Michigan - The Nation - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- Donald Trump doesnt sound too excited about asking Nikki Haley for help - Semafor - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Says Hell Ask Rupert Murdoch to Direct Fox News to Halt Negative Ads Against Him - Hollywood Reporter - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Says On Fox & Friends That Hes Meeting With Rupert Murdoch To Tell Him To Pull Negative Ads And Ban Horrible Democratic Critics -... - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Exhausted and Refusing Interviews: Report - The Daily Beast - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Shares Candid Thoughts on Harvey Weinstein: 'He Got Schlonged' - Newsweek - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- Donald Trump says Apple boss Tim Cook called him with EU concerns - BBC.com - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- A failed mic leaves Donald Trump pacing the stage in silence for nearly 20 minutes - Yahoo! Voices - October 18th, 2024 [October 18th, 2024]
- Why is Donald Trump campaigning in California, a state hes almost certain to lose? - The Associated Press - October 12th, 2024 [October 12th, 2024]
- Sebastian Stan on Losing Sleep Over Not Resembling Donald Trump, That Scene From The Apprentice and Fing Hard Action Movies: Tom Cruise Is Not a... - October 12th, 2024 [October 12th, 2024]
- That Sure Is One Way to Convince Young Men Not to Vote for Donald Trump - Slate - October 12th, 2024 [October 12th, 2024]
- The View co-hosts come out swinging at Donald Trump a day after he insulted them - The Associated Press - October 12th, 2024 [October 12th, 2024]
- Opinion | Yes, this is what Donald Trump really sounds like. No, you cannot ignore it. - The Washington Post - October 12th, 2024 [October 12th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Bemoans His Team Using Wrong Picture at Rally: 'So Stupid' - Newsweek - October 7th, 2024 [October 7th, 2024]
- Disaster politics: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are the latest to deal with fallout - USA TODAY - October 7th, 2024 [October 7th, 2024]
- Donald Trump makes a theatrical return to Butler, scene of assassination attempt - The Guardian US - October 7th, 2024 [October 7th, 2024]
- Opinion | JD Vance Is Smoother but No Better Than Donald Trump - The New York Times - October 7th, 2024 [October 7th, 2024]
- Mike Johnson refuses to say Donald Trump lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden - USA TODAY - October 7th, 2024 [October 7th, 2024]
- Melania Trump says Donald Trump 'knew my position and my beliefs' on abortion 'since the day we met' - NBC News - October 7th, 2024 [October 7th, 2024]
- How Donald Trump Jr. Became the Crown Prince of MAGA World - The Wall Street Journal - October 7th, 2024 [October 7th, 2024]
- Donald Trump in Bulter: Time stood still at site of assassination attempt, he says - BBC.com - October 7th, 2024 [October 7th, 2024]
- Noticias Univision Townhall with Former President Donald Trump Moved to Wednesday, Oct. 16 Due to Hurricane Milton - Univision Communications - October 7th, 2024 [October 7th, 2024]
- Donald Trump returns to scene of rally shooting in Butler - BBC.com - October 7th, 2024 [October 7th, 2024]
- Joe: Vance clearly said he was going to continue the lies of Donald Trump - MSNBC - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- JD Vance again refuses to say Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election - The Associated Press - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- Donald Trump Claims Kim Jong Un Is Trying to Kill Me, Rants About Water-Free Bathrooms During Incoherent-Even-for-Him Remarks - Vanity Fair - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- Donald Trump Mocked Jimmy Carter on the Former President's 100th Birthday - Newsweek - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- Make Them Riot: Newly Unsealed Filing Gives New Details Of Federal Election Conspiracy Case Against Donald Trump - Deadline - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- Donald Trump Gets October Boost as Flurry of Polls Give Him the Edge - Newsweek - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- Opinion | The Dangers of Donald Trump, From Those Who Know Him - The New York Times - September 26th, 2024 [September 26th, 2024]
- Donald Trump says he will protect women. Many dont see it that way. - The Washington Post - September 26th, 2024 [September 26th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Surges in Top Election Forecast - Newsweek - September 26th, 2024 [September 26th, 2024]
- Opinion | Why Do People Like Elon Musk Love Donald Trump? Its Not Just About Money. - The New York Times - September 26th, 2024 [September 26th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Is Quitting Golf on His Own Courses - The Daily Beast - September 26th, 2024 [September 26th, 2024]
- Donald Trump briefed on suspected Iranian assassination plot - The Guardian US - September 26th, 2024 [September 26th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Ignores the Elephant in the Room at North Carolina Rally - Newsweek - September 26th, 2024 [September 26th, 2024]
- Donald Trump is coming to the Alabama-Georgia game. Heres his unusual food request - AL.com - September 26th, 2024 [September 26th, 2024]
- The Republican Party is less white than ever. Thank Donald Trump. - Vox.com - September 26th, 2024 [September 26th, 2024]
- Donald Trump: Project 2025 Will Lay Groundwork for Second Term - The Daily Beast - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Donald Trump says hes unlikely to run for president in 2028 if he loses in November - New York Post - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Mike Johnson Delivers Bad News to Donald Trump on Government Shutdown - Newsweek - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Mark Cuban Confronts Donald Trump Allies With Flurry of Posts - Newsweek - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Stephen King Using Republican's Words Against Donald Trump Takes Off Online - Newsweek - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Kamala Harris Cuts Donald Trump's Advantage on the Economy in Half: Poll - Newsweek - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- That Will Be It: Donald Trump Says He Wont Run In 2028 If He Loses In 2024 - Deadline - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Donald Trump's Vision for Women Is out of 'The Handmaid's Tale': Attorney - Newsweek - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- North Carolina Democrat on his opponent: Robinson exists because Donald Trump has lifted him up - The Hill - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Donald Trump coming back to Metro Detroit this week for Town Hall - WXYZ 7 Action News Detroit - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Donald Trump Launches Attack on Oprah Winfrey: 'This Isn't the Real Oprah' - Newsweek - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Donald Trump Responds After Kamala Harris Agrees to Second CNN Debate - The Daily Beast - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Kamala Harris' Chances of Beating Donald Trump in 7 Swing States: Poll - Newsweek - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- JD Vance and Donald Trump Told To 'Stay Away' In Ohio Newspaper - Newsweek - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- Donald Trump Hate-Watches Oprahs Interview With Kamala Harris at MAGA Rally - The Daily Beast - September 22nd, 2024 [September 22nd, 2024]
- That Time Donald Trump Walked Into a Bar and Bought a Round Using Bitcoin - The Wall Street Journal - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- George Clooney Amps Up His Feud With Donald Trump - The New York Times - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Buys Fans Burgers and Pays With Bitcoin at New York Bar - Bloomberg - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Donald Trump 'They're Eating the Dogs' Song Takes Off Online - Newsweek - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Draws Red Lines for Republicans on Government Shutdown - Newsweek - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Kamala Harris' and Donald Trump's Biggest Problems Are Growing - Newsweek - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Opinion: Donald Trump's politics of hate have come for Taylor Swift - Los Angeles Times - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- What the debate revealed about Donald Trump - The Hill - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Are Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle done? If so, this weekend may get awkward - Miami Herald - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Donald Trump and Polish president to visit Catholic shrine in Pennsylvania - Catholic News Agency - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- How views of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump changed after their debate - YouGov US - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Pop group ABBA ask Donald Trump to stop using their songs, but Trump team says they have the OK - The Associated Press - August 31st, 2024 [August 31st, 2024]
- When is the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris? What to know - El Paso Times - August 31st, 2024 [August 31st, 2024]