# data[].attributes.body
Executive privilege is the power of the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to the executive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Real Reason America's Founding Fathers Gave Presidents the Power to Pardon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why did the Founding Fathers give presidents the power to issue pardons or commute sentences? The idea is simple but the consequences aren't

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brett Kavanaugh Confirmed to Supreme Court After Fight That Divided America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Senate voted Saturday to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court after a fight over his nomination that divided America.

# data[].attributes.body
When the president declares a state of emergency they gain many powers that are usually not available to them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
March 11 at 6:00 AM
On Feb. 15, President Trump declared a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border in an effort to obtain money to build a wall. His declaration faces legal and congressional hurdles and has attracted considerable opposition, including from 58 former senior security officials.

Trump is not the first democratically elected ruler to declare a controversial state of emergency. In 1999, Hugo Chávez and the Constitutional Assembly of Venezuela declared a legislative emergency that allowed the constitution to be rewritten, setting the stage for the nation's descent into authoritarian rule. In 2001, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a state of emergency in the Philippines following protests in response to the arrest of former president Joseph Estrada. She did the same thing in 2003, 2006 and 2009.

The extraordinary step of declaring a state of emergency raises fears that leaders will use them to undermine democratic rule. Our research suggests this fear is justified: When leaders declare a state of emergency, their countries are almost 60 percent more likely to experience a decline in democracy. Our research covered virtually all democracies from 1974 to 2016.
[Should you worry about U.S. democracy? Here's what our poll finds.] This is how we did our research
To measure the health of democracy, we rely on the Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem), which draws on the assessments of more than 3,000 country experts. The V-Dem data shows 54 cases where these experts think a country's democracy eroded substantially or even broke down during the past 40 years. In some cases, democracies died suddenly, such as after a military coup. However, in most cases, democratically elected rulers gradually undermined constraints and expanded their power.

States of emergency can contribute to these gradual declines in democracy by giving leaders extraordinary powers while allowing them to appear as though they are acting in a democratic fashion. To show this link, we married the V-Dem data to data on declared states of emergency from two sources.
States of emergency coincide with democratic decline
Here's what we found: States of emergency coincide with democratic decline. Taking into consideration other factors that can affect democracies, such as economic development and inequality, democracies with a state of emergency are 59 percent more likely to decline than without a state of emergency. In most cases, these periods of decline are lethal for democracies: 86 percent of them ended up collapsing after a state of emergency coincided with significant democratic declines.
Why states of emergency can undermine democracy
States of emergency are an ideal tool to undermine democracy because they provide the guise of legitimacy. Because multiparty elections have become the global norm, even dictators invest in appearing democratic and try to avoid sudden moves toward autocracy - such as military coups - that could trigger mass uprisings or international intervention. Dictators would rather manipulate elections and gradually expand their power.

A state of emergency gives rulers not only the opportunity to gain power, but also a good argument for why they need more power. In essence, they can say, "Why should I have to bother with human rights or legislative constraints while the country is under attack?"

Moreover, even if this dictator loses to the opposition, the new leaders have lower incentives to return to the old rules of democracy while they attempt to solidify control of the nation. Thus, states of emergencies can help to dismantle democracy and subvert resistance to its demise.

The case of Turkey is a good illustration. After an unsuccessful coup in 2016, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared a state of emergency in an attempt to "root out the virus" responsible for the coup attempt. Under the Turkish constitution, once an emergency has been declared, the president "may issue decrees having the force of law on matters necessitated by the state of emergency." Using these emergency powers, Erdogan and his government have jailed more than 40,000 people accused of plotting a coup, fired more than 140,000 people from their jobs, shut down 1,500 civil groups, and virtually eliminated freedom of the press by arresting journalists and closing independent media outlets. International observers no longer consider Turkey democratic.
[In 2018, the turnout gap between young and old people didn't really shrink at all] What this means for the United States
The United States retains a much more robust democracy than Turkey's. In part this is visible in the resistance to Trump's declaration of a state of emergency. Nevertheless, our research suggests that Trump's move raises real risks. It has put the United States into the bad company of eroding democracies and could open the door for further democratic declines.
Anna Lührmann is the deputy director of the Bryan Rooney is a junior research fellow at the Carlos III-Juan March Institute in Spain. V-Dem Institute and assistant professor at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. From 2002 to 2009, she was a member of the German parliament, the Bundestag.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis | Trump declared a controversial state of emergency. That can erode democracy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March 11 at 6:00 AM On Feb. 15, President Trump declared a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border in an effort to obtain money to build a wall. His declaration faces legal and congressional hurdles and has attracted considerable opposition, including from 58 former senior security officials.

# data[].attributes.body
Under the role as Chief Executive, the President has the power to issue executive orders to pass important policy through the executive branch of government. Put simply, and executive order is a type of written instruction presidents use to work their will through the executive branch of government to pass along legislation that is important to the president's policy and campaign. Federal courts may strike down an executive order if it exceeds the scope of the president's authority.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do executive orders work? - Christina Greer

# data[].attributes.body
The president is the head of the executive branch and is responsible for running the federal bureaucracy and enforcing the laws passed by Congress. To do this, the president is allowed to appoint people to key offices and nominate people as members of the Cabinet. The Cabinet consists of appointees who are in charge of the major executive departments and advise the president on policy matters. The president also choses heads of agencies, federal judges , and about 2,000 lesser jobs. The Senate must approve these nominations and appointments. The president also has the power to pardon these officials.

# data[].attributes.body
The president can nominate people as members of their cabinet. They must be approved, but they begin with the president. Currently, Trump is looking for candidates for a new attorney general after Jeff Sessions's resignation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jeff Sessions has resigned as attorney general, ending a tumultuous tenure atop the Justice Department.

Michael Snyder / AP / Mario Anzuoni / Markku Ulander / Joshua Roberts / Tim Chong / Jim Urquhart / Jorge Dan Lopez / Mike Segar / Carlo Allegri / Reuters / The Atlantic

Trump's pick: Vacant; Andrew Wheeler named as acting administrator

Background: Pruitt was the attorney general of Oklahoma, and in that position he led the conservative legal fight against the Obama administration's agenda to combat climate change. Along with other Republican attorneys general, he sued to stop the administration's climate rules-a case that is still pending in federal court. Like Trump, he has voiced doubts about the science behind climate change and its connection to manmade activities.

Government experience: Six years as Oklahoma attorney general, and eight years in the Oklahoma state Senate

Job status: Pruitt resigned on July 5.
Ambassador to the United Nations
Trump's pick: Former Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina

Background: Haley has been considered a rising Republican star ever since she won election as governor of South Carolina in 2010. She gave her highly sought-after endorsement to Marco Rubio in the GOP presidential primary, and she was seen as a likely vice presidential pick if Rubio had won the nomination. But Rubio didn't, and Trump's early selection of Haley as his nominee for UN ambassador was a bit of a surprise. She has no formal foreign-policy experience, but her background as the conservative daughter of Indian immigrants undoubtedly appealed to Trump.

Government experience: Six years as South Carolina governor, and another six as a state legislator before that

Job status: Leaving at the end of the year
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Trump's pick: Former Representative Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina

Background: Mulvaney was a hard-line conservative in the House and a founding member of the Freedom Caucus. He was a frequent critic of former Speaker John Boehner and voted for budget and debt proposals that called for steep spending cuts across discretionary- and entitlement-spending programs. The question is whether his support for overhauling Medicare and Social Security and his resistance to major increases in defense spending will conflict with Trump, who took opposing views on the campaign trail.

Government experience: Six years in the U.S. House and four years as a state legislator in South Carolina

Job status: So secure he has not one top job but two: Trump installed him as the interim head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Director, CIA
Original director: Mike Pompeo

Trump's replacement: Gina Haspel

Reason for change: Trump elevated Pompeo to replace Tillerson as secretary of state.

Background: Haspel would be the first woman to serve as CIA director. She worked closely with Pompeo in over a year as deputy director, but she has a checkered past in the CIA: She oversaw the torture of a terrorism suspect in 2002 and then took part in an effort to destroy video evidence of the activity, according to The New York Times.

Government experience: Haspel spent 30 years in the CIA before rising to deputy director and, upon Senate confirmation, director.

Status of nomination: Confirmed on May 17

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Russell Berman is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers politics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jeff Sessions has resigned as attorney general, ending a tumultuous tenure atop the Justice Department. Trump's pick: Vacant; Andrew Wheeler named as acting administrator Background: Pruitt was the attorney general of Oklahoma, and in that position he led the conservative legal fight against the Obama administration's agenda to combat climate change.