I Alone Can Fix It

I Alone Can Fix It Plot Summary

Introduction

In the waning days of 2019, few could have predicted the extraordinary tests that American democracy would face in the coming year. As a new decade dawned, the United States stood at a crossroads, with its political institutions about to endure unprecedented strain. The final year of Donald Trump's presidency would become a crucible for the nation's democratic foundations, challenging long-held assumptions about the resilience of American governance. This account chronicles a remarkable period when the pillars of American democracy faced their greatest threats since the Civil War. From the administration's chaotic response to a once-in-a-century pandemic to the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, readers will witness how established norms and constitutional guardrails were tested to their limits. The narrative reveals how democratic institutions ultimately depend not just on laws and procedures, but on the commitment of individuals willing to uphold them, often at great personal and political cost. For anyone seeking to understand the fragility of democratic systems and the ongoing challenges facing American governance, this examination of power, crisis, and constitutional resilience offers essential insights into how democracies can both falter and endure.

Chapter 1: Early Warnings: The Pandemic Crisis Emerges (Jan-Feb 2020)

January 2020 marked the beginning of what would become a pivotal year in American history. As the Trump administration celebrated the start of an election year with a strong economy and the president's recent acquittal in his first impeachment trial, troubling reports emerged from China about a mysterious respiratory illness spreading in Wuhan. These early warnings reached the highest levels of government through intelligence briefings and alerts from health officials, but they failed to trigger an urgent response from the White House. The disconnect between the growing alarm among public health experts and the administration's muted reaction became apparent in late January. While Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar attempted to brief the president about the coronavirus threat on January 18, Trump reportedly changed the subject to vaping regulations. When National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien told Trump on January 28 that the virus would be the biggest national security threat of his presidency, the warning went unheeded. Instead, Trump publicly downplayed the danger, telling CNBC on January 22: "We have it totally under control. It's one person coming in from China." Behind the scenes, a crucial opportunity for early preparation was being missed. The CDC developed a coronavirus test in early February, but technical problems and bureaucratic hurdles delayed widespread testing for weeks. Meanwhile, the administration resisted calls to invoke the Defense Production Act to address looming shortages of personal protective equipment and medical supplies. When CDC official Dr. Nancy Messonnier warned on February 25 that Americans should prepare for significant disruptions to daily life, Trump reportedly became furious that her comments had spooked the stock market. The administration's early response revealed troubling patterns that would persist throughout the crisis: the prioritization of economic and political concerns over public health expertise, a reluctance to acknowledge bad news that might damage the president's reelection prospects, and the absence of coordinated federal leadership. As one senior health official later remarked, "We lost February. We lost the opportunity to put basic medical and public health infrastructure in place." By the end of February, with the virus spreading undetected throughout American communities, the president continued to project optimism. At a February 26 press conference, Trump predicted the number of U.S. cases would soon be "down to close to zero." This disconnect between reality and rhetoric would have profound consequences in the months ahead, as the administration's failure to prepare during these crucial early weeks left the nation vulnerable to what would become the deadliest pandemic in a century.

Chapter 2: Leadership Vacuum: Politics Over Public Health (Mar-Apr 2020)

March and April 2020 revealed the devastating consequences of the administration's delayed response to the pandemic. As COVID-19 cases surged across the country, the federal government struggled to implement a coherent strategy, leaving states to compete against each other for limited medical supplies and develop their own containment policies. This period exposed a fundamental leadership vacuum at the federal level, with political calculations repeatedly taking precedence over public health imperatives. The White House coronavirus task force, led by Vice President Mike Pence, became a stage for the administration's contradictory messaging. While medical experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci advocated for aggressive containment measures, Trump grew increasingly impatient with restrictions that damaged the economy and his reelection prospects. This tension played out in daily briefings where the president often contradicted his own health officials, promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine, and made statements that undermined public health guidance. The nadir came on April 23, when Trump suggested researchers look into injecting disinfectants to treat COVID-19, prompting horrified reactions from medical professionals nationwide. Behind the scenes, the federal response was hampered by organizational chaos and competing power centers. Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, established a parallel coronavirus task force staffed largely with young volunteers who lacked relevant experience. This shadow operation, which one participant described as "a family office meets organized chaos," bypassed established emergency response systems and further complicated coordination efforts. Meanwhile, the administration abdicated federal responsibility for acquiring and distributing critical supplies, with Trump telling governors on March 16: "Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment – try getting it yourselves." The politicization of the pandemic response became increasingly apparent as Trump began pushing for rapid reopening of the economy despite warnings from health experts. On April 16, the White House released guidelines for "Opening Up America Again," but the president immediately undermined them by tweeting "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!" and similar messages targeting states with Democratic governors who maintained strict lockdown measures. This encouragement of protests against public health restrictions reflected a growing strategy of deflecting blame to state officials while claiming credit for any positive developments. By late April, the human toll was mounting, with U.S. COVID-19 deaths surpassing 50,000. Yet the administration's focus remained on controlling the political narrative rather than the virus itself. When projections showed that the pandemic would not simply disappear with warm weather as the president had suggested, Trump reportedly erupted in anger at his campaign manager: "I'm going to lose. And it's going to be your fault, because of the coronavirus." This preoccupation with political optics rather than public health outcomes would continue to define the administration's approach in the months ahead, with devastating consequences for the nation's pandemic response and democratic institutions.

Chapter 3: Authoritarian Response: The Lafayette Square Controversy (May-Jun 2020)

The early summer of 2020 marked a dramatic escalation in the administration's authoritarian tendencies as the nation faced a dual crisis: the ongoing pandemic and a nationwide reckoning with racial injustice. The May 25 killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin ignited protests across America, presenting Trump with a moment that called for national healing and leadership. Instead, his response revealed a disturbing willingness to use federal power against American citizens exercising their constitutional rights. As demonstrations spread to more than 2,000 cities and towns, Trump positioned himself as a "law and order" president, describing protesters as "thugs" and threatening military intervention. On May 29, as protests reached Washington D.C., the president was briefly taken to a secure bunker beneath the White House. When this detail leaked to the press, Trump reportedly became furious about appearing weak. This personal humiliation would drive his subsequent actions, prioritizing the projection of strength over constitutional principles. The situation reached a dangerous inflection point on June 1, when peaceful protesters were violently cleared from Lafayette Square near the White House. Federal law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets, and riot shields to disperse the crowd shortly before Trump walked through the area for a photo opportunity holding a Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church. Attorney General William Barr later claimed the operation had been planned before the photo op was conceived, but multiple firsthand accounts contradicted this assertion. The incident represented an unprecedented use of federal force against peaceful demonstrators for what appeared to be purely political purposes. Behind the scenes, Trump was pushing military leaders to take even more aggressive action. In a heated Oval Office meeting that same day, he reportedly berated Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, demanding they deploy active-duty troops to American cities. "You're all losers," Trump allegedly told them. "You're all weak." This pressure campaign prompted extraordinary resistance from military leadership, with Milley later telling colleagues he feared the president was following "the gospel of the Führer" by using the military against citizens. The Lafayette Square incident triggered a rare public break between the president and military leaders. Esper told reporters on June 3 that he opposed invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy troops domestically, directly contradicting Trump's threats. More dramatically, Milley issued a public apology for his presence at the photo op, saying: "I should not have been there. My presence in that moment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics." These statements reflected growing alarm within the Pentagon about Trump's willingness to politicize the military and use federal power against American citizens. The early summer crisis revealed how quickly democratic guardrails could erode under pressure from an authoritarian-minded executive. As former Defense Secretary James Mattis wrote in a scathing statement: "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us." This assessment from a respected military leader underscored the unprecedented nature of the moment and foreshadowed the even greater tests for American democracy that lay ahead.

Chapter 4: Institutional Resistance: Military and Justice Leaders Draw Lines

As Trump's presidency entered its final months, a remarkable pattern of institutional resistance emerged from within his own administration. Career officials, political appointees, and even Cabinet members increasingly found themselves navigating between loyalty to the president and their constitutional obligations. This tension was particularly acute within the military and Justice Department, where leaders faced unprecedented pressure to use their institutions for political purposes. The relationship between Trump and military leadership deteriorated significantly following the Lafayette Square controversy. Defense Secretary Mark Esper's public opposition to using active-duty troops against protesters infuriated the president, who reportedly shouted, "You betrayed me!" during a heated Oval Office confrontation. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, who had appeared in combat fatigues during the photo op, subsequently worked behind the scenes to ensure the military remained apolitical. In private conversations with colleagues, Milley expressed concern about Trump's "Reichstag moment" and established four personal priorities: preventing military involvement in election disputes, avoiding war with Iran, maintaining the military's integrity, and preserving his own personal honor. At the Department of Justice, Attorney General William Barr walked an increasingly difficult line. Though Barr had been one of Trump's most loyal Cabinet members, even he found certain demands impossible to accommodate. When Trump pressured him to announce investigations into Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and other political opponents before the election, Barr refused. "There's no basis for a legitimate investigation of the Bidens," he reportedly told the president. Similarly, when Trump wanted the Justice Department to file a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court challenging election results, Barr told him the idea was "nonsense" and declined to pursue it. This institutional resistance extended to intelligence agencies, where Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe faced pressure to release classified information that might damage Biden's campaign. Though Ratcliffe made some concessions to Trump's demands, he ultimately refused to release the most sensitive materials, reportedly telling colleagues that there were lines he would not cross. Similarly, FBI Director Christopher Wray maintained the bureau's independence despite Trump's repeated threats to fire him for not investigating Biden aggressively enough. Perhaps most consequentially, officials at various levels resisted pressure to manipulate the 2020 election. When Trump urged Republican officials in Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to overturn election results, most refused. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, rejected Trump's explicit request to "find 11,780 votes" during a January 2 phone call. At the Justice Department, senior officials threatened mass resignations when Trump considered replacing Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with a loyalist who would support false election fraud claims. This pattern of resistance revealed both the strength and vulnerability of American institutions. While enough officials ultimately upheld their constitutional obligations to prevent the worst abuses of power, the system depended heavily on individual courage rather than institutional safeguards. As one senior Justice Department official later reflected, "The guardrails held, but barely. And they only held because people were willing to put their careers on the line." This precarious balance would be tested to its limits in the final, violent chapter of the Trump presidency.

Chapter 5: Election Challenges: The Assault on Democratic Norms

The 2020 presidential election and its aftermath represented an unprecedented assault on America's democratic processes. Long before a single vote was cast, Trump began laying the groundwork to challenge any outcome that didn't favor him, telling reporters in July: "I'll have to see. I'm not just going to say yes. I'm not going to say no." This preemptive rejection of potentially unfavorable results marked a dangerous departure from the democratic norm of accepting electoral outcomes, win or lose. As the election approached, Trump focused particularly on undermining confidence in mail-in voting, which many states had expanded due to the pandemic. Despite using mail-in ballots himself, he repeatedly claimed without evidence that the practice would lead to massive fraud. "MAIL-IN VOTING WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE FRAUD AND ABUSE," he tweeted in May. This narrative served a dual purpose: providing a preemptive excuse for potential defeat while setting the stage for post-election challenges. Election Day itself proceeded remarkably smoothly despite the pandemic, with record turnout and no significant irregularities reported by international observers or election security officials. As votes were counted in the days that followed, Biden's leads in key states solidified, particularly as mail-in ballots (which tended to favor Democrats) were tallied. Rather than accepting these results, Trump declared victory prematurely on election night and then pivoted to claiming widespread fraud as his leads evaporated. What followed was an extraordinary campaign to overturn the election results through multiple channels. Trump's legal team, led by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, filed more than 60 lawsuits challenging election procedures and outcomes in key states. These cases were almost uniformly rejected by courts for lack of evidence, with judges (many appointed by Trump himself) issuing scathing opinions about the meritless claims. In one notable ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote that the Trump campaign's arguments would "disenfranchise millions of Pennsylvania voters" based on "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations." When legal challenges failed, Trump turned to pressuring state officials directly. In addition to his infamous call with Georgia's Raffensperger, he summoned Michigan legislative leaders to the White House in an apparent attempt to convince them to appoint alternative electors. The president and his allies also developed a strategy to have Vice President Pence unilaterally reject electoral votes from certain states during the January 6 congressional certification – a power Pence did not possess under the Constitution. Perhaps most alarming was Trump's pressure campaign against his own Justice Department. When Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen refused to send a letter to Georgia falsely claiming the DOJ had found evidence of voter fraud, Trump threatened to replace him with Jeffrey Clark, a lower-ranking official willing to do so. During a dramatic January 3 meeting in the Oval Office, Trump only backed down when informed that such a move would trigger mass resignations throughout the Justice Department. This systematic effort to overturn a legitimate election represented the most serious threat to American democracy in generations. It revealed how many democratic guardrails depended not on laws but on norms and traditions that proved vulnerable to a president willing to violate them. As one constitutional scholar observed, "The system held, but it showed us all the places where it could break next time." This insight would prove prophetic as Trump's false claims of a stolen election fueled the final, violent challenge to the democratic process.

Chapter 6: January 6th: Insurrection and Democratic Resilience

January 6, 2021, will forever stand as one of the darkest days in American democratic history. As Congress gathered to perform the normally ceremonial task of certifying the Electoral College votes, thousands of Trump supporters, inflamed by months of false claims about a stolen election, stormed the U.S. Capitol in an unprecedented assault on the peaceful transfer of power. The events of that day had been building for weeks. After exhausting legal challenges and pressure on state officials, Trump had fixated on January 6 as his final opportunity to overturn the election results. "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" he tweeted on December 19. In the days leading up to the certification, he applied intense pressure on Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes from states Biden had won – a power Pence did not possess under the Constitution. When Pence informed Trump he would fulfill his constitutional duty, the president reportedly told him, "I don't want to be your friend anymore if you don't do this." On the morning of January 6, Trump addressed thousands of supporters at the "Save America" rally near the White House. "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he told the crowd, directing them to march to the Capitol. Shortly afterward, thousands of protesters overwhelmed police barricades and forced their way into the building, some chanting "Hang Mike Pence" and hunting for specific lawmakers. Members of Congress, staff, and the vice president were evacuated or forced to hide as the mob ransacked offices and the Senate chamber. Throughout the assault, Trump watched the chaos unfold on television from the White House. Despite urgent pleas from aides, family members, and congressional allies to call off his supporters, the president initially refused to act. "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump reportedly told House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, who had called begging for help. It wasn't until more than three hours after the breach began that Trump finally released a video asking rioters to go home, while still claiming the election had been stolen and telling them, "We love you. You're very special." The insurrection resulted in five deaths, including a Capitol Police officer, and injuries to more than 140 police officers. It also prompted an unprecedented second impeachment of Trump, with ten House Republicans joining Democrats to charge him with "incitement of insurrection." Though the Senate would ultimately acquit him, with most Republicans citing procedural concerns rather than addressing the substance of the charges, the bipartisan nature of the impeachment reflected the gravity of Trump's actions. Despite the violence and chaos, American democratic institutions demonstrated remarkable resilience. Congress reconvened that same night to complete the certification of Biden's victory, with Vice President Pence presiding. "To those who wreaked havoc in our Capitol today, you did not win," Pence declared. "Violence never wins. Freedom wins. And this is still the people's house." This determination to complete the constitutional process, even after a violent attack, reflected the enduring strength of America's democratic traditions. In the insurrection's aftermath, federal prosecutors launched what would become one of the largest criminal investigations in American history, eventually charging hundreds of participants. Meanwhile, a House Select Committee began investigating the attack and the events leading up to it, gradually uncovering evidence of a coordinated effort to overturn the election results. These accountability measures, though imperfect, demonstrated that even a president was not above the law and that American democracy, though severely tested, had survived its greatest challenge in generations.

Summary

The final year of Trump's presidency represented an unprecedented stress test for American democracy. From his mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic to his authoritarian response to racial justice protests, from his systematic efforts to undermine the 2020 election to his incitement of the January 6 insurrection, Trump repeatedly placed his personal interests above the nation's welfare and constitutional principles. The institutions that had previously constrained him – the courts, the military, the bureaucracy – were pushed to their limits, revealing both their resilience and their vulnerability. What emerges from this dark chapter in American history are vital lessons about democracy's fragility. No system of government, however well-designed, can withstand sustained assault from within without defenders willing to uphold its principles. The individuals who stood firm against Trump's pressure – from election officials who certified accurate results despite threats to military leaders who refused unlawful orders – demonstrated that institutions are only as strong as the people who serve them. Democracy requires not just laws and procedures but also shared commitment to truth, peaceful transfer of power, and the rule of law. As America continues to reckon with the legacy of this period, the most important question remains whether these fundamental democratic values can be restored as shared national principles or whether they will remain contested in an increasingly polarized society.

About Author

Loading...

Philip Rucker

Philip James Madelen Rucker is an American reporter and the White House Bureau Chief at The Washington Post, where he has been working since 2005. He currently covers the Trump administration for the Post, and has previously covered Donald Trump's successful 2016 presidential campaign and Mitt Romney's unsuccessful 2012 presidential campaign.

Read more

Related Books by Philip Rucker

Loading...

A Very Stable Genius

Philip Rucker

Donald J. Trump's Testing of America

★★★★☆4.1