Politics
A Trump bid for a third term? 'It could get messy'
WASHINGTON — In a private meeting at a global summit in Buenos Aires in 2018, China’s president, Xi Jinping, turned to President Trump and said it was a shame he couldn’t stay in power beyond the two-term limit set by the U.S. Constitution. Trump agreed.
It was just one of several instances in which Trump mused over the prospects of an extra-constitutional reign in the White House.
“He’s talked about it for a really long time,” said John Bolton, Trump’s national security advisor from 2018 to 2019, recalling the meeting. “It’s on his mind, and he’d like to do it.”
The possibility of Trump running for a third term gained fresh attention this weekend after the president told NBC that he was “not joking” about pursuing one.
“There are methods,” Trump said. “But I’m not — it is far too early to think about it.”
Attorneys, scholars and state officials disagree. The knowledge that Trump may bid to stay in power, in a direct challenge to the 22nd Amendment, already has election officials in secretaries of state offices throughout the country bracing for legal battles that could begin as soon as next year.
The plain language of the amendment, which states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” will also factor into local races starting next year for secretaries of state across the nation — key offices that will determine ballot qualification and interpret, or ignore, inevitable rulings on Trump’s eligibility from the courts.
It will not happen
— Alan Dershowitz, constitutional professor, on a third Trump term.
“Individual states and federal courts would almost certainly move to keep him off ballots,” said Alex Conant, former communications director for Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign and a founding partner of Firehouse Strategies. “It could,” he added, “get messy.”
Some of Trump’s most prominent current and former attorneys doubt that the president has a path to a third term, absent a laborious, politically challenging and time-consuming constitutional amendment. An amendment must be approved by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50).
Pam Bondi, the president’s attorney general, told senators in her confirmation hearing that Trump could not serve a third term “unless they change the Constitution.”
“It could not happen absent a constitutional amendment, which could not possibly be enacted in time,” said Alan Dershowitz, a longtime constitutional professor at Harvard and a lawyer to Trump during his Senate impeachment trial. “It will not happen.”
And yet in Arizona, where Trump and his allies tried to overturn the election results in 2020 to remain in power, discussions are already underway over the logistical pathways Trump might take to secure ballot access there. As in many other states, Arizona’s process for accepting candidates onto primary ballots relies heavily on the internal decisions of political parties.
How could Republicans, who are so reluctant to defy Trump, oppose such an effort?
“The first line of defense would be the Republican Party standing up for the Constitution and saying, ‘No, you’re constitutionally ineligible, so we’re not going to put you forward as a candidate,’” said a former Arizona election official, granted anonymity to speak candidly.
“But assuming that that fails, and the Republican Party nominates Trump for a third term, then they would try to submit his name and his vice presidential nominee, and their presidential electors in Arizona, to the secretary of state’s office for ballot qualification. That would be the office to assess legal grounds for refusing to put them on the ballot.”
The term for Arizona’s secretary of state, currently a Democrat, ends in 2027.
Given the opportunity, five senior administration officials within Trump’s inner circle contacted by The Times refused to rule out an effort by Trump to remain in office. The White House referred to a statement by the president’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, to reporters on Monday in which she said, “It’s not really something we’re thinking about.”
Bolton, who went from Trump loyalist to fierce Trump critic, says otherwise.
“People need to think about it,” Bolton added. “Trump’s thinking about it, you can guarantee that.”
Obscure ‘methods’
Trump launched his prior reelection bids historically early, announcing his first on Jan. 20, 2017 — the day of his first inauguration — and his second in November 2022, just a week after the midterm elections that year. This time, Trump’s supporters began calling for another run within weeks of him taking office.
Trump was excluded from a straw poll of 2028 candidates at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. But “Trump 2028” material still circulated the event, drawing vocal support from prominent figures in the party, including Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Stephen K. Bannon, a former White House strategist to Trump during his first term, said last month that he, conservative attorney Mike Davis and others are devising strategies for Trump to stay in office, warning that Democrats will try to imprison the president if he relinquishes power.
“We’re working on it — I think we’ll have a couple of alternatives,” Bannon told NewsNation. “We’ll see what the definition of term limit is.”
Legal challenges could come swift and early, experts said.
“Could he solicit money legally for something which you’re ineligible to run for? That might be the first place where somebody would have standing to sue,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College.
The “methods” and “alternatives” referenced by Trump and Bannon are not clear. But Trump acknowledged one idea circulating among his supporters: Running for the vice presidency, and then either having the elected president resign or allowing Trump to effectively run the government.
That plan would face multiple hurdles, requiring Trump to trust someone enough to win the presidency and relinquish power to him.
It would also raise questions over the 12th Amendment, which states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President.”
“It’s just cut and dry — he’s ineligible,” said Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer during the George W. Bush administration, “and to put an ineligible candidate on a state ballot for a primary, you’re denying everyone in that political party the right to vote for president, because someone ineligible is on the ballot.
“I think you could go to federal court for an injunction, and I think the Supreme Court might just have a nationwide injunction against it,” Painter added.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, speaking at the White House in 1944, broke a tradition established by George Washington when he ran for a third and fourth term.
(Henry Burroughs / Associated Press)
Only one former president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ran for and won more than two terms in office, breaking with a tradition that started at the advent of the nation.
“The norm created by George Washington was that the president would serve only two terms, and then Roosevelt decided not to,” said Peter Kastor, chair of the History Department at Washington University in St. Louis. “After FDR died, before the conclusion of his fourth term, a variety of people came together and concluded they needed to codify the notion of a two-term presidency.”
Now, with the 22nd Amendment in place, the question legal scholars and election officials are asking isn’t whether the law is clear, but whether Trump will follow it.
“I don’t think I’ve really heard serious discussion among serious people — there are certainly musings about it among conservatives, but not necessarily conservative lawyers,” said Curt Levey, president of the conservative Committee for Justice.
“There’s no doubt that the administration is being assertive and it means to test the boundaries of executive authority,” Levey added. “But I think it’s extremely unlikely that he would order Republican officials, in many states, to defy court orders — and even if he ordered them, doesn’t mean they would comply.”
Trump will be 82 at the end of his current term, older than President Biden was when he ran for reelection against Trump last year.

Politics
Supreme Court Sides With Migrant Trump Administration Wrongly Deported

The Supreme Court on Thursday instructed the government to take steps to return a Salvadoran migrant it had wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
In an unsigned order, the court stopped short of ordering the return of the migrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, indicating that courts may not have the power to require the executive branch to do so.
But the court endorsed part of a trial judge’s order that had required the government to “facilitate and effectuate the return” of Mr. Abrego Garcia.
“The order properly requires the government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the Supreme Court’s ruling said. “The intended scope of the term ‘effectuate’ in the district court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the district court’s authority.”
The case will now return to the trial court, and it is not clear whether and when Mr. Abrego Garcia will be returned to the United States.
“The district court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs,” the Supreme Court’s ruling said. “For its part, the government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”
The ruling appeared to be unanimous. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a statement that was harshly critical of the government’s conduct and said she would have upheld every part of the trial judge’s order.
“To this day,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “the government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it.”
Justice Sotomayor urged the trial judge, Paula Xinis of the Federal District Court in Maryland, to “continue to ensure that the government lives up to its obligations to follow the law.”
A Justice Department spokesman responded to the order by focusing on its reference to the executive branch.
“As the Supreme Court correctly recognized, it is the exclusive prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs,” the spokesman said. “By directly noting the deference owed to the executive branch, this ruling once again illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy.”
Andrew J. Rossman, one of Mr. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s action.
“The rule of law won today,” he said. “Time to bring him home.”
Mr. Abrego Garcia’s wife described the effect the case has had on their family and said she would keep pursuing his return to the United States.
“This continues to be an emotional roller coaster for my children, Kilmar’s mother, his brother and siblings,” Jennifer Stefania Vasquez Sura, his wife, said on Thursday, adding that “I will continue fighting until my husband is home.”
Judge Xinis had said the Trump administration committed a “grievous error” that “shocks the conscience” by sending Mr. Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite a 2019 ruling from an immigration judge. The immigration judge granted him a special status known as “withholding from removal,” finding that he might face violence or torture if sent to El Salvador.
The administration contends that Mr. Abrego Garcia, 29, is a member of a violent transnational street gang, MS-13, which officials recently designated as a terrorist organization.
Judge Xinis, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, said those claims were based on “a singular unsubstantiated allegation.”
“The ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie,” she wrote, “and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York — a place he has never lived.”
In the administration’s emergency application seeking to block Judge Xinis’s order, D. John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general, said she had exceeded her authority by engaging in “district-court diplomacy,” because it would require working with the government of El Salvador to secure Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release.
“If this precedent stands,” he wrote, “other district courts could order the United States to successfully negotiate the return of other removed aliens anywhere in the world by close of business,” he wrote. “Under that logic, district courts would effectively have extraterritorial jurisdiction over the United States’ diplomatic relations with the whole world.”
In a response to the court, Mr. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers said their client “sits in a foreign prison solely at the behest of the United States, as the product of a Kafka-esque mistake.”
They added: “The district court’s order instructing the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return is routine. It does not implicate foreign policy or even domestic immigration policy in any case.”
Mr. Sauer said it did not matter that an immigration judge had previously prohibited Mr. Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador.
“While the United States concedes that removal to El Salvador was an administrative error,” Mr. Sauer wrote, “that does not license district courts to seize control over foreign relations, treat the executive branch as a subordinate diplomat and demand that the United States let a member of a foreign terrorist organization into America tonight.”
Mr. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers said there was no evidence that he posed a risk.
“Abrego Garcia has lived freely in the United States for years, yet has never been charged for a crime,” they wrote. “The government’s contention that he has suddenly morphed into a dangerous threat to the republic is not credible.”
Mr. Sauer said Judge Xinis’s order was one in a series of rulings from courts exceeding their constitutional authority.
“It is the latest in a litany of injunctions or temporary restraining orders from the same handful of district courts that demand immediate or near-immediate compliance, on absurdly short deadlines,” he wrote.
In her statement on Thursday, Justice Sotomayor wrote that it would be shameful “to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law.”
She added that the government’s position “implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”
“That view,” the justice wrote, “refutes itself.”
Alan Feuer, Aishvarya Kavi and Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.
Politics
Judge sides with Trump: anyone in US illegally must register with fed government

The Trump administration was handed another win on Thursday after a federal judge ruled that everyone in the U.S. illegally must register with the federal government and carry documentation.
The Associated Press reported that Judge Trevor Neil McFadden, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, sided with the administration after arguing it was enforcing an existing requirement for everyone in the country who is not a citizen of the U.S.
Rather than rule on the substance of the Trump administration’s arguments, McFadden ruled that the group pushing to stop the requirement did not have standing to pursue their claims.
McFadden’s ruling will go into effect Friday.
NOEM SENDS MESSAGE TO THOSE CONSIDERING ENTERING US ILLEGALLY: ‘DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT’
Asylum seekers wait to be processed by U.S. Border Patrol agents after crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico into the United States in 2023 in Eagle Pass, Texas. (John Moore/Getty Images)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Thursday that the deadline to register for anyone who has been in the country for 30 days or more is Friday, adding that the registration requirement will be enforced to the fullest.
“President Trump and I have a clear message for those in our country illegally: leave now. If you leave now, you may have the opportunity to return and enjoy our freedom and live the American dream,” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in the statement. “The Trump administration will enforce all our immigration laws — we will not pick and choose which laws we will enforce. We must know who is in our country for the safety and security of our homeland and all Americans.”
The DHS began warning illegal immigrants in February that they should leave the country or face serious consequences.
DHS SECRETARY NOEM APPEARS TO ACCUSE ‘CORRUPT’ FBI OF LEAKING LA ICE RAIDS

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visits the Mariposa Port of Entry, Saturday, March 15, 2025, in Nogales, Ariz. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
The secretary said DHS will enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was enacted in 1952 and created several tools to track illegal aliens and compel them to voluntarily leave the U.S.
DHS said the tools include criminal penalties for migrants who choose not to leave the U.S., fail to register with the federal government and get fingerprinted, and fail to notify the federal government of changes to their address.
Illegal immigrants who fail to depart the U.S. will be charged with a crime resulting in a “significant penalty,” DHS said.
NOEM ENDS BIDEN-ERA USE OF CONTROVERSIAL APP TO ALLOW MIGRANTS TO BOARD FLIGHTS, EXCEPT TO SELF-DEPORT

ICE is conducting flights to remove illegal immigrants from the U.S. and back to their home countries. (ICE Seattle)
But migrants who fail to register with the federal government could be fined, imprisoned or both.
Registration is mandatory for anyone 14 and older without legal status. Anyone registering will be required to provide their fingerprints and address.
Canadians are also required to go through the registration process if they have been in the U.S. for more than 30 days – this includes “snowbirds,” who spend winter months in warmer areas like Florida.
While it has long been required for people who live in the U.S. and are not American citizens, the requirement has only been enforced in rare circumstances.
For instance, the requirement was enforced in a limited way after Sept. 11, 2001, when the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System required noncitizen males 16 and older from 25 countries – all but one of them Arab or Muslim – to register with the U.S. government.
Even though the program did not lead to terrorism convictions, it pulled over 13,000 people into deportation proceedings. The program was suspended in 2011 and dissolved in 2016.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Politics
Contributor: Trump's latest trade war with China is sorely needed
On Wednesday, President Trump abruptly announced a 90-day pause on most of his planned country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs — with the notable exception of the People’s Republic of China. In so strikingly singling out China as the focus of America’s economic and geopolitical ire, Trump was not merely clarifying that the United States views China and its regnant Communist Party as our leading 21st century threat — he was also taking yet another notable step toward fulfilling his own lifelong goal of fundamentally resetting the terms of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship.
As an “outer-borough” native New Yorker from Queens, Trump has long seen things differently than most of his white-shoe brethren and fellow one-percenters living across the (literal and proverbial) river in Manhattan. Throughout virtually his entire career, Trump has served as a “class traitor” archetype — someone who, as I wrote in an essay last year, “may hold ‘elite’ ruling class credentials, but whose hearts, minds, concerns, and general sensibilities are decidedly with the country class.” That is the essence of Trump’s nationalist-populist MAGA political coalition. But it’s also who Trump has been since his earliest interviews with the New York City tabloids and TV hosts all those decades ago.
There is no better example than trade, Trump’s most consistently held political position. In the 1980s, he was alarmed at the rise of Japan as an economic superpower, arguing that America’s trade deficit with Japan was problematic and that the U.S. should respond with crippling tariffs. (It seems that President Reagan, who in 1987 slapped a 100% tariff on many Japanese goods, was listening.) In recent decades, Trump has applied the same logic to the newer threat of China. In 2011, for instance, four years before he launched his successful presidential run, Trump railed against widely practiced Chinese currency manipulation: “They have manipulated their currency so violently towards this country, it is almost impossible for our companies to compete with Chinese companies.”
During the first year of his first presidential term, Trump directed his Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate Chinese trade practices. The subsequent report was damning, and Trump implemented numerous tariffs on Chinese goods — tariffs which, to his rare credit, President Biden largely kept in place and even built upon with further levies on Chinese imports that went into effect last September.
In addition to his first-term tariffs, Trump also filed a formal World Trade Organization case against China, alleging deceptive trade practices and intellectual property theft. As Trump put it at the time in a tweet: “Today I directed the U.S. Trade Representative to take action so that countries stop CHEATING the system at the expense of the USA!”
Trump’s tariff escalation this week against Communist China — even as he paused many other tariffs to allow for bilateral trade negotiations and give jittery bond markets some relief — is a natural culmination of the work to reset the U.S.-China economic relationship that he commenced during his first term. For that matter, it is also the natural culmination of his short-lived third-party presidential run in 2000 with the trade protectionist Reform Party, as well as his 1988 “Oprah Winfrey Show” interview, where he teased a future presidential run that would focus on trade. Immigration may be the issue most readily associated with Trump’s MAGA movement, but there is no issue that has been nearer and dearer to Trump’s heart over the decades than trade — first with Japan, and then with China.
Most important, Trump has not just been outspoken on the issue of trade with China — he has been proven correct.
Ever since President Nixon’s fateful trip to visit Chairman Mao Zedong in Beijing in 1972, American elites of all political stripes promised that welcoming China into the global economy would be good for all parties involved. American consumers, we were reliably informed, would get cheaper and more abundant goods; American exporters would get a massive and exciting new market to peddle their wares; and the Chinese people themselves would soon reap the rewards of the “political liberalization” that could only come about through “economic liberalization.” This was the dominant thinking when Nixon visited China over a half-century ago, when the George W. Bush administration welcomed China into the World Trade Organization in 2001, and when President Obama hosted and toasted Xi Jinping at the White House in 2015.
Suffice it to say it hasn’t exactly all worked out according to plan.
In Shanghai in 2022, amid the communist country’s interminable COVID-19 lockdowns, government drones with loudspeakers blasted: “Control your soul’s thirst for freedom. Do not open your windows and sing.” Chinese companies have engaged in serial intellectual property theft, brazenly stealing American companies’ trade secrets and illegally repackaging them for export at heavily subsidized prices.
TikTok, one particularly problematic Chinese export, is mental fentanyl designed to addict the Western masses and dupe them into poisonous ideologies — and Communist Party spyware, to boot. Speaking of (actual) fentanyl, China is largely responsible for that particular drug killing hundreds of thousands of vulnerable young Americans. Meanwhile, China sends “spy balloons” across the North American continent and routinely allies with the worst state actors on the planet. And if that weren’t bad enough, America’s manufacturing base and national security-critical supply chain infrastructure have been decimated — by China.
For far too long, elites have led America to disaster when it comes to trade with China. They have acted in myopic and ruinous fashion, bringing calamity to the nation they purport to love. America’s trade war with the rogue Chinese superpower must happen. The Chinese Communist Party must be crushed — and there is no one better to crush them than the White House-dwelling class traitor par excellence, Donald Trump. Godspeed, Mr. President.
Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer
-
Technology1 week ago
The FAA hiding private jet details might not stop celebrity jet trackers
-
News1 week ago
Supreme Court Rules Against Makers of Flavored Vapes Popular With Teens
-
News1 week ago
NYC Mayor Eric Adams' corruption case is dismissed
-
Technology1 week ago
Here’s how you can preorder the Nintendo Switch 2 (or try to)
-
World1 week ago
Will European agriculture convert to new genomic techniques?
-
News1 week ago
Trump to Pick Ohio Solicitor General, T. Elliot Gaiser, for Justice Dept. Legal Post
-
News1 week ago
Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs Are Coming, but at a Cost to U.S. Alliances
-
Politics1 week ago
FBI flooded with record number of new agent applications in Kash Patel's first month leading bureau