Michael: Alright Kevin, quick question. If you had to describe the Trump White House based on Rucker and Leonnig's reporting, but as a weather forecast, what would it be? Kevin: Easy. A category five hurricane of chaos, with a 100% chance of rage-tweets, and intermittent showers of 'very stable genius.' Pack a helmet. Michael: A helmet is probably good advice. Today we're diving into I Alone Can Fix It by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig, two Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists from The Washington Post. Kevin: And this isn't just another political tell-all. These are the reporters who lived and breathed this beat. They did over 200 interviews for their books on the Trump presidency. This one covers his catastrophic final year. Michael: Exactly. And it all starts with that one, foundational idea that defined everything. The book’s title itself is a quote from Trump’s 2016 Republican nomination speech. He stood on that stage and declared, "I alone can fix it." Kevin: That’s not just a campaign slogan, is it? That sounds more like a mission statement. Michael: It’s the entire operating system. The authors argue that this wasn't just rhetoric; it was the core of his solipsistic governing style. Everything revolved around him, his power, and his self-preservation.

Kevin: Okay, so what does a 'solipsistic' presidency actually look like in practice? I mean, all politicians have egos. What made this different? Michael: It’s the difference between ego and a worldview where loyalty to the leader replaces loyalty to the country or the Constitution. The book is filled with examples, but one of the most telling is the story of the so-called 'adults in the room.' Kevin: Ah yes, the guardrails. The people who were supposed to keep things from going completely off the rails. Michael: Right. Seasoned professionals like Jim Mattis at Defense or Rex Tillerson at State. They joined the administration feeling a sense of duty, hoping to lend their expertise. But the book describes how Trump wore them down with what they saw as the "inanity, impropriety, and illegality of his ideas." Kevin: So they weren't there to execute his vision, they were there to play Whac-A-Mole with bad ideas. Michael: Precisely. And if you weren't on board, you were out. The book details this constant cycle of betrayal. Trump would rupture and then repair relationships just to keep his aides off-balance. Eventually, one by one, these figures either resigned in frustration or were unceremoniously fired. Kevin: That’s incredible. It’s like he was systematically removing the brakes from the car while it was speeding down the highway. Michael: And the rest of the world noticed. There's a fascinating story in the book about how other world leaders had to develop damage-control strategies to deal with him. Ahead of a G7 summit, Trump's own advisers were giving other governments tips. Kevin: Wait, his own team was telling other countries how to handle their boss? Michael: Yes. They were told things like, "don't be patronizing," and "sprinkle in compliments." The French ambassador at the time, Gérard Araud, is quoted saying something absolutely chilling. He said world leaders treated Trump like a "difficult teenager" and that they were all in a "mode of damage control" because, as he put it, "Everything he does and decides may have very, very dire consequences on us." Kevin: So international diplomacy became about managing a personality, not negotiating policy? That’s terrifying. But Michael, millions of people voted for this. The book talks about him capitalizing on their anger. Was this solipsism what they were actually voting for? Michael: That's the paradox the book explores. He positioned himself as the champion for people who felt forgotten and humiliated. When he said, "I am your voice," he was promising to be a wrecking ball to a system they felt had failed them. For his supporters, his willingness to break norms wasn't a bug; it was the feature. They saw it as him fighting for them. Kevin: So the very thing that horrified the establishment and foreign leaders was the thing that electrified his base. Michael: Exactly. And that idea of being the sole champion leads directly to our second point: if you're the only one who can fix it, then any institution that gets in your way isn't a check on power, it's an enemy.

Kevin: And nobody embodied that enemy more for Trump than his own Justice Department. Michael: You nailed it. The book dedicates a huge amount of space to this because it was a central conflict of his presidency. It all came to a head with his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. Trump picked Sessions because he was an early, loyal supporter. He expected Sessions to protect him. Kevin: Protect him from what? Michael: From the Russia investigation. When Sessions recused himself, which he was legally and ethically required to do because of his own contacts with the Russian ambassador, Trump had a meltdown. The book describes him screaming at his White House Counsel, Don McGahn, demanding he stop Sessions. Kevin: Because in his mind, the Attorney General works for him personally, not for the country. Michael: That's the core of it. The book recounts Trump bellowing at his aides, "Where is my Roy Cohn?" For anyone who doesn't know, Roy Cohn was Trump's infamous personal lawyer and fixer in New York, a man known for his ruthless, unethical tactics. Trump didn't want an Attorney General; he wanted a personal bulldog. Kevin: It sounds less like a president and more like a mob boss who's furious his consigliere won't break the law for him. Is that what the authors are getting at? Michael: It's a powerful analogy, and the book provides the evidence. This war on institutions culminated in the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Trump thought firing Comey would lift the "cloud" of the Russia probe. He even boasted to Russian officials in the Oval Office the next day, "I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off." Kevin: Wow. And of course, it did the exact opposite. Michael: The exact opposite. It backfired spectacularly. The firing led directly to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, which escalated the investigation into a multi-year saga that threatened his entire presidency. Steve Bannon, one of his top advisors, warned him against it. He told Trump, "The moment you fire him, he’s the greatest martyr. He’s Joan of Arc." Kevin: Bannon was right. But what about the people who resisted, like Don McGahn? The book shows he refused Trump's order to fire Mueller. Were there real guardrails, or were they just temporary speed bumps? Michael: That's the perfect question, because it gets to the heart of the administration's internal civil war. McGahn was a speed bump, but eventually, all the speed bumps were removed. This is what the book calls the 'axis of enablers.'

Kevin: So it was a war of attrition. The people who pushed back just got worn down or pushed out. Michael: Completely. The book paints this incredible, almost unbelievable scene at the Pentagon in a secure conference room called 'the Tank.' This was in July 2017. His top national security team—Mattis, Tillerson, and others—tried to give him a tutorial on why alliances like NATO and trade deals matter for American power. Kevin: Like a 'Schoolhouse Rock' for the President. How did that go over? Michael: It was a disaster. Trump was dismissive, calling the war in Afghanistan a 'loser war.' And then he looked at the assembled generals and admirals—the Joint Chiefs of Staff—and said, "You're all losers. You don't know how to win anymore." He called them "a bunch of dopes and babies." Kevin: He said that to the country's top military leadership? Michael: To their faces. The book reports that after the meeting, Secretary of State Tillerson was so disgusted he privately called Trump a "fucking moron." That meeting was the beginning of the end for many of them. It was the ultimate clash between the 'resistance within' and Trump's worldview. Kevin: And as those people left, who filled the void? Michael: Loyalists. The 'axis of enablers.' Figures like Mattis, Kelly, and Tillerson were replaced by people who were far less likely to challenge him. For example, when it came to the Mueller report, Attorney General Bill Barr stepped in. The book details how Barr framed the report's conclusions in a four-page letter that Trump immediately seized upon as a "complete and total exoneration," even though the report itself explicitly stated it "does not exonerate him." Kevin: So the 'adults in the room' were systematically replaced by people who wouldn't say no. It's a story of attrition. The book seems to argue this is what made his final year so 'catastrophic,' as the title says. With no one left to say no, what happened? Michael: What happened was the Ukraine call. The book argues that by the time Trump made that infamous July 25th call to President Zelensky, he felt completely unrestrained. He had survived the Mueller probe, he was surrounded by loyalists, and he believed he could use the power of his office to pressure a foreign country to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden. Kevin: Because all the people who would have told him "Mr. President, you can't do that" were gone. Michael: They were all gone. The guardrails had been removed, not by a single act, but piece by piece over three years.

Kevin: It's a chilling narrative. The book isn't just a collection of crazy anecdotes; it's a chronicle of institutional erosion. Michael: That’s the deepest insight. The book's ultimate argument is that the system held, but only just barely. It wasn't the institutions themselves that saved the day; it was a handful of individuals within them—people like Don McGahn, Sally Yates, or even the anonymous whistleblower—who acted as the final line of defense by upholding their oaths. Kevin: They were the circuit breakers. Michael: Exactly. And the book leaves us with a chilling question: what happens next time, if those individuals aren't there? Or if they've been replaced by people whose primary loyalty is to the leader, not the law? Kevin: It really makes you think. It's not about one person, but about the strength of the system and the people who uphold it. The book is a chronicle of a stress test. The question it leaves me with is, did we pass? Michael: That's a powerful question. What do you all think? Did the system pass the test? Let us know your thoughts on our social channels. We'd love to hear your perspective. Michael: This is Aibrary, signing off.