PBS News Hour featured Washington Post editor Jonathan Capehart making alarming claims about President Trump’s response to Los Angeles riots, suggesting a scheme to suspend elections through the Insurrection Act—a theory critics quickly dismantled as legally impossible.
At a Glance
- Jonathan Capehart suggested on PBS News Hour that Trump’s Los Angeles riot response and planned Army parade are part of a larger scheme
- Capehart claimed invoking the Insurrection Act could lead to suspended elections, citing Minnesota AG Keith Ellison’s concerns
- Critics point out the Insurrection Act contains no provisions allowing for election suspension
- The claims came amid separate media turmoil as ABC News fired Terry Moran after an anti-Trump social media meltdown
- Speculation included references to a rumored Trump pardon for Derek Chauvin as a “distraction”
Capehart’s Controversial Theory
During a June 13, 2025 broadcast of PBS News Hour, Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart presented viewers with an extraordinary theory regarding President Trump’s motivations for responding to civil disorder in Los Angeles. Capehart connected Trump’s actions, including a planned Army parade in Washington, to what he characterized as a potential plot to invoke the Insurrection Act—with staggering implications according to his analysis. The comments came as part of a broader discussion about the administration’s response to unrest in Los Angeles and what Capehart suggested were hidden motives behind these decisions.
“Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart claimed on Friday’s edition of PBS News Hour that he knows the actual reason for President Trump’s response to rioting in Los Angeles and for Saturday’s Army parade in Washington.”, said Jonathan Capehart.
In his comments, Capehart referenced Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, claiming the state official raised concerns about President Trump potentially pardoning Derek Chauvin—the former police officer convicted in George Floyd’s death. According to Capehart, Ellison suggested this rumored pardon could serve as a “distraction” from more consequential goals.
The Washington Post editor then expanded on this theory by suggesting the administration might be deliberately creating conditions to justify invoking the Insurrection Act, a law dating back to 1807 that allows presidents to deploy military forces within the United States under certain circumstances.
Claims About Election Suspension
The most controversial aspect of Capehart’s commentary came when he suggested that invoking the Insurrection Act could lead to suspended elections. This claim represents a significant escalation in rhetoric regarding presidential powers and drew immediate skepticism from legal experts. Critics pointed out that nothing in the Insurrection Act grants any authority to suspend or cancel elections, which are constitutionally mandated and administered by states rather than the federal government. Despite this factual obstacle, Capehart presented the scenario as a genuine concern.
“And once the president invokes the Insurrection Act, all sorts of powers are handed to the president, you know, suspending elections, and other things, that, once you open that box, and particularly you open that box with this president and the administration and the yes-people he has around him, there’s no going back.”, added Capehart.
Further undermining the practical feasibility of Capehart’s theory, reports indicated that the planned Army parade he referenced faced potential cancellation due to weather concerns. Critics suggested this logistical reality cast additional doubt on the existence of a coordinated strategy as complex as what Capehart described. The parade, they noted, would be an unreliable centerpiece for any significant political maneuver if it could be derailed by simple weather forecasts.
Media Turbulence Beyond PBS
Capehart’s comments came during a period of broader turbulence in media circles regarding coverage of the Trump administration. Just days earlier, ABC News announced it would not renew the contract of veteran correspondent Terry Moran following what the network described as inappropriate social media posts targeting President Trump and White House adviser Stephen Miller. The posts, which were quickly deleted but captured by screenshots, reportedly contained personal attacks that ABC News determined violated their standards of objectivity and impartiality.
The incident followed what sources described as a contentious interview between Moran and President Trump, after which the reporter’s social media outburst occurred. ABC initially suspended Moran pending investigation before ultimately deciding against contract renewal. The network emphasized its commitment to objectivity in its statement announcing the decision, signaling heightened sensitivity to maintaining impartiality in its political coverage amid an increasingly polarized media landscape.
