← Post Reports
Post Reports
Trump's biggest clash with the courts yet
00:28:36
The Trump administration’s fight with the courts is escalating. Plus, President Donald Trump’s negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Loading summary
Transcript64 lines
- [00:02]
Aaron Blake
So have you figured out who killed JFK yet?
- [00:06]
Justin Juvenal
Lee Harvey Oswald?
- [00:08]
Aaron Blake
No. That's what they want you to think, Justin.
- [00:10]
Natalie Allison
That is what they want you to think. I'm still working through the 80,000 pages. I'll get back to you when I finish reading. Yeah.
- [00:17]
Aaron Blake
Waiting for a light week to go through the documents. Yeah. Maybe the truth will be in there somewhere. So keep looking, folks. From the newsroom of the Washington Post, this is Post Reports. I'm Aaron Blake, senior politics reporter and host of the Post Reports weekly Politics Roundtable. It is Thursday, March 20, and we're a day early in your feeds this week because I am off on Friday. I'm joined this week by Supreme Court reporter Justin Juvenile. Hey, Justin, thanks for having me on again. And we're also here with a relatively new addition to the Washington Post team, White House reporter Natalie Allison. Hey, Natalie.
- [00:57]
Natalie Allison
Hey, Aaron. Thanks for having us.
- [00:58]
Aaron Blake
Thanks for being here. So, guys, I'm really glad that we have both of you today because we are going to be breaking down Trump's courtroom dramas, which I know you've both been reporting on. We're gonna talk about how the administration has been losing in a lot of federal court cases this week and also the all important and increasingly fraught question of whether Trump will actually follow those rul. We're also gonna get into Trump's negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and hopes for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Justin, I wanted to start with you and before we get into the news of the week and the particular cases, we've talked about this idea of disregarding court orders before on this show. But can you just give me the basics on whether a president has to follow a court order and what the big significance of this debate is?
- [01:55]
Justin Juvenal
Yeah, I mean, this is really Civics 101 going back to elementary school. Congress makes the laws, the executive or the president enforces the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws or tells us what they mean. So it's generally been accepted that the president has to follow a court order, and it's been relatively uncontroversial throughout the history of America. But one interesting thing about when the executive branch defies a court order is that the judiciary branch relies on the executive to enforce any sanction it puts on someone. So you'd have a situation where if a judge ordered a Trump official jailed for not following a court order, the judge would rely on the US Marshals, for instance, which are controlled by the president, to put the person in jail. So at that point, the system could break down.
- [02:48]
Aaron Blake
Yes. And that's what we often talk about when we mention what's called a constitutional crisis. Basically the idea that there would be this clash between branches of government with no real ready solution to it. So with those basics in mind, the reason that we're talking about this is that we've seen a real fight over this issue this week. It has to do with the administration's invocation of a very old law, like 1798 old law called the Alien Enemies Act. And last weekend, the Trump admin used that law initially in secret to start deporting Venezuelan nationals who the government says belong to a gang called Trende Aragua. Justin, can you just describe briefly what happened next?
- [03:34]
Justin Juvenal
Yeah. How much time do you have? It's been.
- [03:36]
Aaron Blake
I did say briefly.
- [03:39]
Justin Juvenal
I mean, it's. I've covered the courts for many years, and I can't recall a week quite like this one. It's been a really extraordinary drama that's unfolded, basically after Trump signed this executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act. The next day, five Venezuelans sued the administration to block their deportation under the order. Judge James Boasberg, U.S. district Court Judge in D.C. then issued an order blocking the Trump administration from deporting these five people under the Alien Enemies Act. And then later on Saturday, he held a second hearing where he extended the order to block the deportation of any people that could be subject to the Alien Enemies act who were members of Train de Aragua. And we had this really dramatic moment during the hearing where Judge Boasberg says, you know, you can't deport anyone under the Alien Enemies Act. I'm putting this on hold. And he turns to the government attorneys and says, if there are any planes in the air right now, you need to turn them around mid flight and bring them back to the United States. And shortly before he had said that, the Trump administration sent two flights filled with alleged gang members to El Salvador, where the US has contracted with the government down there to hold these folks. So the flights actually continued. The Trump administration appeared to flout the judge's orders and continue with the flights, and they went all the way to El Salvador. After Judge Boas Berg issued his order, a third flight took off. The Trump administration said that flight did not actually contain any people were being deported under the Alien Enemies Act. So this really brought this idea of a constitutional crisis to a head. You had the prospect of the administration perhaps defying an order by a judge. So Judge Boasberg then hauled the Trump officials into court on Monday and asked them to explain why they had apparently defied his court order to turn the planes around. The judge then ordered the Trump folks to swear out declarations explaining when the planes took off, how many people were on the flights. And that brings us up to where we are today, where at noon today, the government is supposed to submit these sworn declarations explaining how they handled the whole situation.
- [06:11]
Aaron Blake
Yeah. And I should emphasize that we're recording this before that hearing at noon on Thursday. There could be some further details in this situation that we'll, of course, update people on if we get them. Natalie, it seems to me like the administration hasn't been totally clear on what exactly happened here. Can you just talk about the conflicting signals that we're getting here?
- [06:36]
Natalie Allison
Yeah, it's sort of been all over the place and trying to report on this. On Sunday, I was helping out our immigration team in a way. It, from my perspective, it seemed like they were trying to work out their explanations in real time. From my interactions with them, I heard things like, well, the plane was off of U.S. soil. Well, the plane was out of U.S. airspace. Well, the orders actually didn't apply at all because they were unlawful or the oral order didn't matter. We were waiting on the written one or all of the planes left before any order was issued that would apply to us. And so the explanation kept changing, and it seemed like they were sort of throwing different explanations and justifications against a wal to see what stuck. And we sort of saw the explanations continue to change over the next couple of days. Between the White House press briefing that Caroline Levitt gave, between the administration's response in court and then subsequent court filings, we kept sort of seeing the explanations changing, and not only about when the flights left and their justification for leaving, but about this idea, as you noted, about whether they were actually flouting the judge's orders, whether they were complying. Sunday morning, we saw the press president of El Salvador tweet out a screenshot of a New York Post article with a laughing emoji. And the the headline on the story was that the judge had ordered the planes to turn around and said they couldn't use the Alien Enemies act to deport these people. And the president of El Salvador has his laughing emoji and says, oopsie. And that's a tweet that is shared by a number of White House officials, top White House staff, the secretary of State. They retweeted it. They were all sort of in on this, this joke, if you will, about the fact that they with this despite the judge's orders, and we see someone like Tom Homan suggesting that they didn't have to follow this order. We're not stopping.
- [08:28]
Justin Juvenal
I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks.
- [08:31]
Natalie Allison
We're coming. Then we hear the White House press secretary repeatedly say we did comply and we are complying with the orders and we will.
- [08:39]
Aaron Blake
That's White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt.
- [08:42]
Caroline Levitt
This administration acted within the confines of.
- [08:44]
Aaron Blake
The law, again within the President's constitutional authority and under the authority granted to.
- [08:49]
Caroline Levitt
To him under the Alien Enemies Act.
- [08:51]
Aaron Blake
We are quite confident in that and we are wholly confident that we are going to win this case in court.
- [08:56]
Natalie Allison
Then we see President Trump in his interview with Laura Ingraham also double down on the fact that they aren't flouting any orders, that they are in compliance.
- [09:05]
Justin Juvenal
Would you defy a court order?
- [09:07]
Natalie Allison
We all know that was outright.
- [09:09]
Justin Juvenal
I never did defy a court order.
- [09:10]
Natalie Allison
And you wouldn't in the future?
- [09:11]
Aaron Blake
No, you can't do that. However, we have bad judges.
- [09:14]
Natalie Allison
And so there's a lot of mixed messaging that we have seen from the White House in the last few days surrounding their attitude on this deportation plan and the judge.
- [09:25]
Aaron Blake
Yeah, the provocative comments from people like Homan and the social media posts which you mentioned, Natalie, to me kind of really drive home something that I think runs through a lot of the White House's actions these days, which is that, you know, whether or not they are deliberately violating the law or violating court orders, like they're at the very least flouting it. They're like having some fun with the idea that they can't be legally constrained.
- [09:51]
Natalie Allison
Totally.
- [09:51]
Aaron Blake
And I wonder if that in and of itself is significant here. Like, are they kind of marshaling support behind this idea that they should have unchecked power, even if they aren't necessarily arguing the same things in a court of law?
- [10:04]
Natalie Allison
You know, this is not new from the Trump White House that there's this wink, wink, sort of, we're in on the joke sort of attitude to a lot of things, be it trolling reporters or, you know, Democrats. But there's this certainly this attitude that we're going to troll and we're going to, when you ask us, you know, what we're doing, we're always going to say we're complying with the law and everything is above board, but we're going to do what we want to do and have some fun with it. In the meantime, you know, while they're saying they're complying with the judge, they're following the law. They're following his orders. We also have Trump and, you know, a number of high ranking Republicans and officials calling for the judge's impeachment. And so, you know, you have on the one hand, them insisting that they are complying and the other hand saying this man shouldn't even be issuing orders, he should be impeached.
- [10:50]
Justin Juvenal
If I could interject there, I mean, I think there's two things going on here. There's a legal strategy on one hand which seems kind of muddled, but I think there's also a political strategy the administration is following. And I think Trump has kind of indicated that in some of his social media posts. I think they think they're on really good political ground to be deporting alleged gang members. Immigration, they feel like, is a very strong issue for them. And Trump has said in his social media posts that he was elected to crack down on immigration and secure the border. And I, in some ways, they like the political fight of sort of taking on a judge over this issue of deporting alleged gang members. I think they think it's a winning political strategy for them.
- [11:32]
Natalie Allison
Yeah, they see no downside to that.
- [11:34]
Aaron Blake
Yeah. It's going to be really interesting to see moving forward what we learn about these people who are actually deported. The White House has not been sharing information about who they are, and we're seeing a lot of reporters try to chase down that information. You know, we here at the Washington Post as of Thursday morning are learning about family members who are recognizing people who are featured in some of these images and videos and say that they're not members of this gang. There was a sworn affidavit that circulated of somebody who suggested that the tattoos on one of these deportees was misunderstood and wasn't actually a trende Aragua tattoo. So certainly a very dynamic situation and something that we're gonna be watching moving forward. Justin, Natalie brought up something that I think is the other big aspect of this story, which is the idea of impeaching this judge, James Boasberg. We had not only President Donald Trump taking to Truth Social and calling him a crooked judge and said he should be impeached. We saw Elon Musk saying much the same thing. Right wing members of the House especially were calling for his impeachment. That drew a pretty big response this week. Pretty unusual response from a significant figure in the judiciary, I think it's safe to say. Can you just talk about this unusual development that, yeah, you may have heard.
- [12:54]
Justin Juvenal
About the Chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. John Roberts. Yes. So what happened after Trump issued his call for Judge Boasberg to be impeached? On Tuesday morning, just hours later, Chief Justice John Roberts put out a statement rejecting the idea that impeachment was the proper course to resolve a dispute with the courts. And he said, you know, really what should be done is if you don't like a ruling in the case, you should appeal it to the appeals court. And it's pretty extraordinary for the Chief justice to issue a public statement. Judges are loathe to enter the public forum and make public statements. They like to issue statements through their rulings. That's particularly true of Supreme Court Justices and John Roberts, who's quite cautious in his public declarations. But it's not the first time Roberts has kind of tangled with Trump. If you remember, during the first Trump administration, Roberts came out with a statement when Trump was at attacking some judges and calling them Obama judges who had ruled against him. At that point, Robert said, hey, there's no Trump judges. There's no Obama judges. These are all just judges who are doing their job. So this is a pretty extraordinary moment that we don't see very often, and it's pretty interesting to watch it unfold.
- [14:17]
Aaron Blake
Yeah, it does happen from time to time, but it's somewhat unusual. It strikes me that impeaching this judge is unlikely. Like, even if that could get through the House, they'd need two thirds of senators to sign off on it, to actually remove the judge. Like, they're not actually going to go down this road, are they?
- [14:33]
Justin Juvenal
I think the short answer is it's not going to happen. Since about 1800, there have been 15 judges who have been impeached. So it's a really unusual occurrence. And it doesn't look like there would be the votes in the Senate to, you know, approve an impeachment conviction. So it seems like it's really not going to go anywhere.
- [14:56]
Aaron Blake
This is also a judge, by the way, who was initially appointed to the D.C. superior Court by George W. Bush. So this is not like the picture of a liberal judicial activist, which is what Trump has been casting him as and what Trump allies have been casting him as. And I just kind of wonder, like, why is this the judge that they're suddenly talking about impeaching? Why is this the flashpoint that we've seen so far? And if you guys have a read on that, I'd be interested to hear it.
- [15:21]
Justin Juvenal
I think what's happened is a couple things. One, we've seen anger from Trump and his allies kind of Building for a number of weeks. In the early court cases, the lawsuits we've seen over the Trump administration actions, Trump has mostly lost. Courts have enjoined his push to end birthright citizenship. They've enjoined his freeze on foreign aid. They've enjoined his ban on transgender troops. So Trump has had a number of reversals in courts on some of his biggest initiatives. And I think partly administration officials and Trump allies are frustrated with these reversals. They had this shock and awe period where they were coming out and issuing a ton of executive orders, and a lot of those have now been held up by the courts. So I think it's frustrating. I think this particular case was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back. And I think going back to something earlier, I said I think the Trump officials feel like they are on good political ground in attacking the judge over this particular immigration issue, which they think they have the backing of the American public to really attack.
- [16:33]
Aaron Blake
Justin, you mentioned some of the other administration losses in court. Just this week, in addition to the judge attempting to halt these deportations of Venezuelan immigrants, we saw a judge ruling that the dismantling of usaid, the foreign aid organization, appeared to violate the law. Another federal judge struck down a ban on trans transgender troops in the military. I did a compilation today, actually, looking at all the cases in which a judge ruled that the administration either had violated the law or had likely violated the law, and found more than a dozen cases so far that that works out to about one out of every four days in the administration. So far, we have seen a ruling like this, which is pretty extraordinary. But isn't that also a reflection of how far the administration is going with, like, there's certain things that the administration is doing, like on birthright citizenship, trying to take away a long recognized constitutional protection, like this use of the Alien Enemies act, which has only been invoked in actual wartime before, that, like, are clearly going very far.
- [17:39]
Justin Juvenal
Yeah, I think you're exactly right. I've talked to a bunch of legal experts about Trump's initial executive orders, and one common theme you hear is a they really pushing beyond the bounds of the Constitution and the laws as they're written. For instance, the birthright citizenship ban, you'd be hard pressed to find a legal scholar who thinks Trump can ban birthright citizenship with an executive order. Almost no one thinks that.
- [18:07]
Aaron Blake
Yeah, this is the right of people born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents immigration status, to be U.S. citizens.
- [18:14]
Justin Juvenal
Yeah. And I think also another common theme in the executive orders is that they've been issued either ignoring statutes that are on the books that contradict it, or ignoring basic constitutional principles that would make the executive action invalid or unconstitutional. And I think what's going on, Trump is really pushing the bounds of executive power, and Trump is really pushing that to an extreme. We see him doing that with impoundment, where he's asserting that he can decide whether funds that Congress has allocated can be spent or not. I mean, the Constitution has a fundamental principle that Congress has the powers of the purse and that Congress should be the ones that allocate money to particular programs. Trump is trying to assert himself there and in a lot of other areas as well.
- [19:12]
Aaron Blake
We'll certainly be watching that here. But after the break, we're going to be talking about Donald Trump's conversation with Vladimir Putin and a potential ceasefire deal in Ukraine. We'll be right back.
- [19:34]
Michelle Singletary
My name is Michelle Singletary and I'm the personal finance columnist for the Washington Post. When I was growing up, I was raised by my grandmother who was such a masterful money manager, and I watched her handle her money and talk to me about it. And I like to think that I'm the reader's big mama. There's so much information about your money out there, a lot of it wrong or inappropriate. But when you pay for a subscription to the Post, you're paying for a skilled journalist who has had years of experience, who I hope that you can trust. Your subscription helps pay for my salary. It helps pay for the illustrators, the copy editors, all the people who are involved in putting together the material that you read that could help inform your life. I'm Michelle Singletary and I'm one of the people behind the Post.
- [20:34]
Mint Mobile Ad
For years and years I overpaid for wireless, but then I finally got fed up. The crazy high bills, bogus fees, and quote unquote free perks that actually cost more in the long run became too much. Then I switched to Mint Mobile and the savings I'm seeing are incredible. Say goodbye to jaw dropping monthly bills because Mint Mobile is here with premium wireless plans starting at 15 bucks a month. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. You can use your own phone and current number with any Mint mobile plan. Get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. Shop plans@mintmobile.com reports that's mintmobile.com reports upfront payment of $45 for three month 5GB plan required equivalent to $15 per month. New customer offer for first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.
- [21:33]
Coda Ad
Support for post reports comes from coda. You're starting a new project at work and your vision is clear. You know exactly what you need to do, where to find the necessary data, who's involved and what they need from you. You don't have to waste time searching for anything because everything your team needs, from project trackers and OKRs to documents and spreadsheets are in one tab all in CODA. With CODA's collaborative all in one workspace, you get the flexibility of docs, the structure of spreadsheets, the power of applications, and the intelligence of AI in one easy to organize tab. More than 50,000 teams. Trust Coda to try it for yourself, go to Coda IO reports today to get started for free. That's C O D A IO reports to get started for free CODA IO reports.
- [22:34]
Aaron Blake
On Wednesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to the terms of a limited 30 day ceasefire with Russia that came a day after President Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin. But it also came less than three weeks after Trump and Zelensky had a well publicized blow up at the White House that ended with Zelensky leaving, leaving early. Natalie, it's pretty clear that this remains a proposed ceasefire with lots of details to be worked out, but can you just give us an update on where things stand and maybe how hopeful we should be that this actually leads to some form of peace?
- [23:10]
Natalie Allison
Yeah, you know, it's not what Trump wanted. He wanted to have a full ceasefire by now, and that is something that Russia wasn't on board with. So we have right now what's being described as a ceasefire on energy infrastructure and, and still has begged the question of the way the US And Ukraine and Russia have described these deals. It varies depending on who you're asking. And in the White House press briefing, Caroline Levitt was presented with the question of can you clarify whether this was an energy infrastructure ceasefire or a ceasefire on energy and infrastructure? And that was a question she said she wasn't going to answer. And the common interpretation right now is that this is focused on energy infrastructure in particular, that questions about a full ceasefire and a ceasefire in the Black Sea, that those, those negotiations are still underway. They haven't been worked out. Trump didn't get that full ceasefire that he wanted. But you know, right now Trump is striking a different tone on Ukraine than what we saw a couple weeks ago with, yes, that remarkable blow up in the Oval Office. We are not seeing Trump taking to Truth Social every day right now to disparage Zelensky. And so, in that sense, you know, things are on better footing for Ukraine. But I will say, you know, Trump's conversation with Putin was twice as long as with Ukraine, and it's unclear whether Ukraine will be at the table in the talks that are going to resume in a few more days. And Trump and Putin were having conversations about Russia and the US Playing each other in hockey and clearly sharing this very friendly relationship in a way that Trump has not necessarily engaged with Zelensky.
- [24:48]
Aaron Blake
Yeah. You mentioned the uncertainty over whether this is about energy infrastructure or energy and infrastructure. I think we've seen conflicting accounts of that from the White House and the Kremlin. But that's not the only thing that seems to be uncertain here. Like, this is actually not the first thing that we've seen different signs from both the White House and the Kremlin this week. Right.
- [25:12]
Natalie Allison
Yeah. There was also a question about whether aid to Ukraine was discussed, and Russia.
- [25:18]
Aaron Blake
Said that it was on this phone call with Putin. You.
- [25:20]
Natalie Allison
Correct? Yes. And the conversation between Trump and Putin, the Kremlin said that there was a discussion about stopping any aid to Ukraine, and the US Government says that that was not discussed. And at this point, it's a question of do you believe Putin or do you believe Trump and the officials who surround them? And the White House also declined to elaborate on that when asked about that by reporters this week. And so, you know, they're going to work out more of a deal in the coming days. But right now, we don't have a ton of insight into what exactly was discussed on that call with Putin, besides, of course, the fact that they did talk about hockey.
- [25:59]
Aaron Blake
Yeah. The aid discussion or the lack of an aid discussion, whichever it was, is really interesting to me because both sides kept repeating these very different narratives about what was talked about on this call. But I do think it also kind of reinforces this overriding question, which was like. Like, should we actually trust the Russian government to abide by these agreements? Can we accept their word? Can we take them at their word? And I'm just wondering if you have a sense of where the White House is on this.
- [26:31]
Natalie Allison
Yeah, well, Trump, of course, ran on the idea that he could end this war before he actually took office, which he has blown his deadline on that. But he's highly motivated to be the one who can be responsible for. For ending the war, for. For being the hero in this situation and in that Oval Office blow up he made it very clear that it doesn't really matter that Russia has repeatedly not acted in good faith with Ukraine, and, and Putin has shown himself to be someone you can't always trust. He said it doesn't matter because Ukraine doesn't have the cards and Russia does. And he knows that in order to be the one who brokers this deal, he's going to have to have some goodwill with Putin. And he was very upfront about that. He said, I can't just, just come out here and badmouth Putin as a liar and someone who isn't acting in good faith. And so, as someone who, who claims to be the expert on the art of the deal, Trump and the White House right now are really setting aside concerns about how much you can trust Russia to just say, if we want to have a hope of, of ending this thing, we have to have buy in from Russia, and therefore, we're going to have to, to give them a shot to prove that they, they can act in good faith.
- [27:36]
Aaron Blake
Certainly some really interesting dynamics there. We've talked about a couple of very dynamic situations that we're gonna be watching moving forward. I wondered on each of these situations, what are the next kind of big things that you're gonna be watching for in not just the hours ahead, but also the days ahead?
- [27:57]
Justin Juvenal
Well, on the court fights that Trump is engaging in, I mean, I think the big question is still whether he's going to abide by the court ruling in this case and some of the, where judges have blocked actions that he wants to take in this specific case. You know, we have this hearing today where the Trump officials will have to answer questions about how they handled the deportation of these alleged Venezuelan gang members. And then on Monday, we have a hearing before the Circuit Court of appeals in D.C. where Trump is asking the Circuit Court of Appeals to block the temporary restraining order that's been placed on him from enforcing the Alien Enemies act to deport these gang members. So those are the next big steps.
- [28:44]
Natalie Allison
Yeah. And what I'm watching, of course, is just where these negotiations go between the US And Russia and Ukraine. What we're going to find out next week as they continue to talk about that. But something I'm keeping an eye on is whether Trump does end up going to Russia and in the coming month or two. There was reporting a few weeks ago that he was going to be making a trip there to Moscow in May, and Trump denied that reporting, but a number of people think that that's still possible. And so I'm curious if somehow we we reach this full ceasefire that Trump says is possible, will he go and take a victory lap?
- [29:17]
Aaron Blake
Yeah. There certainly seems to be at least a professed desire for some kind of normalization of relations with Russia, and it's certainly testing whether the American people think that's a valid approach. But that's it for today's episode. Thank you so much, Justin and Natalie.
- [29:31]
Justin Juvenal
Thanks for having us on.
- [29:32]
Natalie Allison
Thanks, Aaron.
- [29:34]
Aaron Blake
Natalie Allison is a White House reporter covering President Donald Trump and his political movement for the Post. And Justin Juvenal is a Supreme Court reporter for the Post. After our conversation, Judge Boasberg issued another order in the case about the Alien Enemies act and the flights of Venezuelan migrants. At noon on Thursday, the Trump administration was supposed to give more information about those flights. But according to Boasberg's order, they gave the court the same general information as before. And the government suggested that it might claim that it can't share more information because that would expose state secrets. Boasberg called that response woefully insufficient and gave them new deadlines to explain themselves. Today's episode was produced by Laura Benshoff and mixed by Seville. It was edited by Rena Flores and Rachel Van Dongen. I'm Aaron Blake. See you next time.
- [30:37]
Caroline Levitt
You listen because you know the power of good journalism and the Washington Post is there for you 24 7. When you become a Washington Post subscriber, you get exclusive reporting you can't find anywhere else. You also get sharp advice columns, delicious recipes, TV and music reviews, and so much more. Right now, you can get all of that for just $4 every four weeks. That's for an entire year. After that, it's just $12 every four weeks. And you can cancel any time. Add to your knowledge and discover all the Post has to offer. Go to washingtonpost.com subscribe that's washingtonpost.com subscribe.