You can scroll down 3 grafs to get to the tools if you don’t care to read the words. I don’t want to lose the purpose within my words, like trees in a forest.
I consider myself a superlative networker. I can find people/things/articles/whatever and bring to them others who can use them. Scottie needed some help a few months back and gave me some space on his platform, and mostly, instead of writing my opinions about things which so many of us share already and read in lots of places, I’ve tried to go in the direction of supporting mental health, and things we can do to keep (or, these days, try to keep) our democracy (healthy) and fix things for people’s greater good. So, it’s true, other than a few comments and some original post titles, I don’t write much here; I network information. This post is from me, though.
We all know that I’m big on civic duties, having been practically brought up to do them, and believing in the rule of law and being loyal opposition when opposition supports the most people. So, when I do write things, typically it is with hopes of motivating or reminding others that we still have these duties and the rights to perform them; that letting these duties slide has helped bring us where we are; and, especially now, if we don’t use our rights and perform our duties, we lose the rights and can no longer perform the duties.
Which brings me to some tools. I’ve read EPI for years and years, and use their tools to help me lobby my legislators about issues that matter to most people. EPI has created a new set of tools, so I’m sharing them here in this post. I hope you managed to read through the previous grafs to get here, because this is important, and will be helpful to all of us as we do our work preserving democracy.
EPI Action is the home page. From here, you can scroll and click around to see what you want to see, and gain the tools to make your work easier. Yes, “EPI” stands for Economic Policy Institute (I think; they’ve been EPI now for so long, I may have messed that up.) And, yes, maybe someone thinks, “Hey, I only want to work on this, that, or the other, but not on economics.” Well, you can do that from here. EPI has information and tools to work with:
Learning About Wages, Jobs, and Inequality listing numerous items of data to peruse, including “Union membership rates and the union wage premium, Annual wages for select groups, including the top 1% and bottom 90% of wage earners, Racial and gender wage gaps, Unemployment rates, including by state, Poverty rates, Inflation rates”.
EPI has fact sheets you can use when you go to legislator town halls/forums, if that’s your thing, or to give away at a booth or a table if that’s your thing, or just to consult while you’re writing up a letter or email, or a script for calling, your legislators. Whatever your thing. If your thing is filing to run for office, EPI is a great information resource for use while campaigning and forming policy.
But please don’t delete without scrolling down to the Extra Credit item, which is of particular and specific pertinence to our interests here on Playtime, and just do that one if you can’t stomach bothering your congresscritters today. Seriously, just do the Extra Credit item-you won’t be sorry, and you will make a difference!!!Thanks, A.
I hope you’re hanging in there today. I know things remain gobsmackingly awful, but I remain cautiously optimistic that the opposition is at last finding its sea legs.
A few reasons for this are:
1) House Democrats announced this morning that they have formally established a Rapid Response Task Force and Litigation Working Group! Good! We need a committee specifically dedicated to this fight, and this one, it seems, will be. I also happen to know that a huge political influencer is meeting with the Democrats this morning (and all week) to teach them how to make effective posts for social media. It’s overdue, and I’m very glad it’s happening.
2) There are now several big rallies or actions in the works—a nationwide protest on February 17, a one-day general strike on February 28, and a “total shutdown” on March 15. I’m sure many more things are being planned. There’s also now a website for a General Strike, and 200K people—including me—have already signed a strike card. The organizers offer a weekly Discord discussion, by the way, if you have questions about how a general strike might work. All are welcome.
3) Finally, my sister Lily went to her first Indivisible meeting last night. She called me from her car—in high excitement, I might add—to tell me that the meeting, which was hosted by a brand new Indivisible group, Rockland Indivisible, was so full that she couldn’t even get into the parking lot of the library where it was being held! Cars were backed up on the freeway trying to get in! She eventually found parking a ways away and walked over, but the room was so full she couldn’t get inside. She listened from the hallway and was blown away by the energy and enthusiasm of the 300 people (!!) in the room. More were watching on Zoom. This kind of out-of-control enthusiasm for (and turnout at) a new Indivisible group is just wildly encouraging.
I could go on. It’s building. It’s coming. I feel it. We just need to keep fanning the flames.
Our job is to not quit while it’s hard. They want us to. They’re counting on it. They literally think we’re snowflakes. They think their orgy of destruction will force us to walk away in exhaustion.
They’re going to find out that they’re very wrong.
Breathe in strength. Breathe out fear. I’m not downplaying the danger. It’s real. I simply believe in our power more than I fear their malevolence. You should too.
Hi, I’m a constituent calling from [zip]. My name is ______.
I’m calling to demand that the Senator vocally support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and protect it from being dismantled by the Trump administration. The CFPB does vital work to protect consumers like me from being scammed by predators. A block to its funding is both illegal and also puts me at direct risk for financial harm. [H/T]
Speaking of which, almost everything Elon Musk is doing is illegal. Does the Senator stand for law and order or doesn’t s/he? If s/he does, then s/he needs to fight to take Congress’s power back. Agencies like the CFPB and USAID can’t be shut down without Congressional approval. That’s the LAW. Standing up for it is literally the Senator’s job. Thanks.
Hi, I’m a constituent calling from [zip]. My name is _______.
[If Republican:]
I’m calling in strong opposition to defunding USAID. Why is Congress letting Musk do this? It’s illegal. Any closing of an agency established by Congress can only be approved by Congress. Also, USAID gives the US massive influence overseas, it keeps diseases at bay, and it gives U.S. farmers a place to sell their produce. By gutting it you are hurting Americans. Please restore support for USAID immediately. I didn’t vote for Elon Musk and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let him hurt my country. Thanks.
[If Democrat]
I’m upset about the gutting of USAID. I appreciate Democrats’ support for it, but the message needs to be stronger, louder and more effective. Congress needs to take its power back—any major reform or closing of an agency established by Congress can only be approved by Congress. More needs to be done now to stop the dismantling of USAID and other vital agencies, and to provide appropriate protections to the federal workforce. Thanks.
The Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, a former leader in gender-affirming health care in the bluest of blue states, has stopped offering vital health care to new patients, cancelling scheduled appointments for hormone treatments. We know that a lack of access for trans kids leads to higher rates of depression and suicide so we must call this out for what it is, a callous and fear-based decision to capitulate in advance to a transphobic White House trying to rule by Executive Order. Gender affirming care is protected under California state law so denying this care is also illegal.
CHLA’s patient relations line is 323-361-4682 (you have to let the entire outgoing message play to get to the VM. The “press pound” function doesn’t work.
Say something like:
My name is ____ and I am deeply disappointed by CHLA’s decision to stop providing gender-affirming care to new patients. This sends a terrible message to the rest of the country that even hospitals in blue states are unwilling to provide vital healthcare for trans patients. It also goes against California State Law. Please reverse this horrible decision. It will only lead to increased rates of depression and suicide for trans children. Thank you.
You can also call California Attorney General Rob Bonta. He’s written a letter to put CHLA on notice, but needs to know that is not enough. His office’s number is 1-800-952-5225 (press 1 for English, then 7 to leave a message). If you live in CA be sure to say that but you can call even if you don’t.
My name is ____ and I want to make sure you’re doing everything you can to protect trans kids in our communities. I was extremely disappointed to hear that Children’s Hospital of LA recently stopped providing gender-affirming care for new patients. This sets a dangerous precedent for other medical providers in California and violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act. I understand your office has put CHLA on notice but we need you to do more until this dangerous decision is reversed. Thank you.
Get Organized
Join Indivisible’s weekly discussion with co-founders Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg on Thursdays, 3pm ET/12pm PT.
When horrendous news comes at us as fast as it has the last few weeks, the only way to process it and stay grounded is to come together in community and discuss what’s happening. And, more importantly, discuss how we fight back. I can’t adequately describe how helpful these weekly Indivisible calls are to me. Ezra and Leah are so smart, so strategic, and so tough. They give me a lot of hope.
Want to stay apprised of what’s happening in the news but need it in a not-overwhelming format? I really like Matt Kiser’s Substack “What the F**k Just Happened Today?” (The actual name contains the full curse word, so if that’s a dealbreaker don’t click on it.)
Matt describes it this way:
WTF Just Happened Today? is a clear, once-a-day newsletter helping normal people make sense of the news. It’s curated daily and delivered every afternoon around 3 pm PT.
My job is to help distill news that deserves attention into a clear, understandable, and accurate first draft of history for normal people who might not otherwise engage with the news. WTFJHT covers the news through the lens of the executive branch specifically – and the president in particular – followed by the legislative and judicial branches in general, and in that order.
I find it to be a useful way of keeping track of the top headlines without drowning in information overload. Maybe you will, too. Check it out here.
Messaging! Messaging! Messaging! 📣
Truth Bombing is a new means of communicating that tackles the misinformation problem. Learn to use your creativity and social media to create & distribute pro-democracy messaging where it will do the most good.
This is Civic Sunday’s 6th zoom about it, by popular demand. Thursday Feb 13, 2pm PST/5pm EST.
Join Grassroots Democrats HQ and WisDems to make calls to voters for the Wisconsin Supreme Court election! Join them every week on Wednesdays to recruit volunteers from 3-5pm PT/6-8pm ET and Sundays to contact voters from 10am-12pm/1pm-3pm ET.
You’ll be making calls to talk to voters in Wisconsin about what issues are important to them & the importance of the Supreme Court Race and Spring Elections!
First time making calls? Phone banking is easy, fun, and rewarding! You’ll receive comprehensive training at the start of your shift.
Right now, ICE agents and other federal immigration officers are racially profiling and detaining U.S. citizens and people with valid visas because of how they look. For example, some Native residents of Arizona and New Mexico have already been questioned or detained by federal immigration agents. Some federal agents have also rejected Tribal ID cards or Certificates of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) as proof of citizenship. In response to these civil rights violations, Tribal leaders across the country are encouraging their members to carry documentation and to know their rights if ICE agents stop them on the street or knock on their door.
In these ICE roundups, federal agents are also violating people’s constitutional rights — which apply regardless of immigration status — by arresting people without reasonable suspicion. Additionally, although being here as an undocumented person is a civil violation and not a crime, federal agents are arresting undocumented people who have no criminal records.
Please do everything in your power to stop the presidential administration’s illegal and unconstitutional actions, including by rejecting Trump nominees who plan to break the law, speaking out forcefully to pressure the White House to walk back violations of the law, refusing to fund immigration raids and detention, and conducting oversight visits of immigration detention centers. Immigrants and Indigenous people make America great. Thanks.
OK, you did it again! You’re helping to save democracy! You’re amazing.
with which to address and direct our government, the American Bar Association has provided very good such words. I was thinking I was going to make this a morning post, but I’m going ahead and publishing so people can get to work in the morning. Thanks for everything you can do! It matters, and we have to really push our legislators to do the right things, now more than ever before in my own lifetime, and I thought that was when we invaded Iraq. This is exponential amounts of that.-A.
The American Bar Association Pulls The Fire Alarm by Rebecca Schoenkopf
Yesterday, the American Bar Association did something it pretty much never does: It spoke out on politics. If you’re a cow with a head injury or an alien from outer space or a typical Trump supporter, you might think the organization is being partisan in so doing, but that word doesn’t apply when the president and his party are in the midst of committing a Nazi terrorist attack to destroy the United States once and for all, and with it, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rest of our 249-year experiment.
But that’s what’s happening, which means groups like the ABA must speak out. It’s not the kind of thing that’s going to make a ripple at the next Make Cousins Love Again Trump Nazi Jamboree in Pig Whistle, Alabama, but it might be instructive for some of the real lawyers currently trading their integrity and legal ethics to work for Donald Trump, or real lawyers quietly hanging on in government agencies facing a choice over whether or not to do that.
Y’all know how lawyers who work for Trump tend to get disbarred, right?
The Trump regime, unsurprisingly, is being very clear that if the choice for lawyers is between following the law and breaking it for Trump, they’ll pick the latter every time. Pam Bondi’s Justice Department has already let it be known in no uncertain terms that their alliance is to den Führer.
Letters have been drafted begging the ABA to stand up against the two-bit dictator. The ABA has already had to come out in opposition to Trump’s executive order threatening targeted investigations into DEI in bar associations of all kinds, at all levels. The clear implication being that if you speak out against Stupid Hitler in any way, Stupid Hitler will target you. NBC News has much more on what the conversations surrounding bar associations are looking like right now.
Now we have this very long statement from Bill Bay, the president of the ABA. Again, if you’re a MAGA Nazi supporter, it might seem “partisan.” To normal people who don’t hate America and everything it stands for, it’s just patriotic.
The full statement, which is titled “The ABA Supports The Rule Of Law,” with a few things bolded for emphasis:
It has been three weeks since Inauguration Day. Most Americans recognize that newly elected leaders bring change. That is expected. But most Americans also expect that changes will take place in accordance with the rule of law and in an orderly manner that respects the lives of affected individuals and the work they have been asked to perform.
Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.
We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law.
The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair. We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well.
Just last week, in rejecting citizenship challenges, the U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said that the rule of law is, according to this administration, something to navigate around or simply ignore. “Nevertheless,” he said, “in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.” He is correct. The rule of law is a bright beacon for our country.
In the last 21 days, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed alleging that the administration’s actions violate the rule of law and are contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States. The list grows longer every day.
These actions have forced affected parties to seek relief in the courts, which stand as a bulwark against these violations. We support our courts who are treating these cases with the urgency they require. Americans know there is a right way and a wrong way to proceed. What is being done is not the right way to pursue the change that is sought in our system of government.
These actions do not make America stronger. They make us weaker. Many Americans are rightly concerned about how leaders who are elected, confirmed or appointed are proceeding to make changes. The goals of eliminating departments and entire functions do not justify the means when the means are not in accordance with the law. Americans expect better. Even among those who want change, no one wants their neighbor or their family to be treated this way. Yet that is exactly what is happening.
These actions have real-world consequences. Recently hired employees fear they will lose their jobs because of some matter they were assigned to in the Justice Department or some training they attended in their agency. USAID employees assigned to build programs that benefit foreign countries are being doxed, harassed with name-calling and receiving conflicting information about their employment status. These stories should concern all Americans because they are our family members, neighbors and friends. No American can be proud of a government that carries out change in this way. Neither can these actions be rationalized by discussion of past grievances or appeals to efficiency. Everything can be more efficient, but adherence to the rule of law is paramount. We must be cognizant of the harm being done by these methods.
Moreover, refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress under the euphemism of a pause is a violation of the rule of law and suggests that the executive branch can overrule the other two co-equal branches of government. This is contrary to the constitutional framework and not the way our democracy works. The money appropriated by Congress must be spent in accordance with what Congress has said. It cannot be changed or paused because a newly elected administration desires it. Our elected representatives know this. The lawyers of this country know this. It must stop.
There is much that Americans disagree on, but all of us expect our government to follow the rule of law, protect due process and treat individuals in a way that we would treat others in our homes and workplaces. The ABA does not oppose any administration. Instead, we remain steadfast in our support for the rule of law.
We call upon our elected representatives to stand with us and to insist upon adherence to the rule of law and the legal processes and procedures that ensure orderly change. The administration cannot choose which law it will follow or ignore. These are not partisan or political issues. These are rule of law and process issues. We cannot afford to remain silent. We must stand up for the values we hold dear. The ABA will do its part and act to protect the rule of law.
We urge every attorney to join us and insist that our government, a government of the people, follow the law. It is part of the oath we took when we became lawyers. Whatever your political party or your views, change must be made in the right way. Americans expect no less.
– William R. Bay, president of the American Bar Association
Again, if you’re a Nazi Republican, that probably feels like an attack. All good and true things feel like attacks to Nazi Republicans, we reckon.
This is a plea to lawyers to remember that they’re lawyers and act accordingly, unlike the freaks Trump has installed atop the Justice Department and in OMB and everywhere else, many of whom have represented Trump so many times that the concept of legal ethics is probably a foreign language at this point. (Use it or lose it! It applies to high school Spanish and also legal ethics, we guess.) And it’s a plea to elected officials to at least pretend like they weren’t making jerk-off motions behind their backs when they took their oaths.
Note that the full statement, while referring to specific things, doesn’t invoke the dictator by name. That seems intentional.
Bay said last week at a speech in Phoenix that the ABA “will not shrink from the things we believe in.” More:
“We will stand tomorrow for what we stand for today and what we stood for yesterday: the rule of law, the importance of our judicial system, the essential role of lawyers, an inclusive profession,” he said. “These are our north stars. We will hold fast to our core principles in the face of shifting winds.”
Bay closed out his speech to a standing ovation, saying, “I believe this will be our finest hour.”
We certainly hope so. The times we live in require it.
EJ Dionne quotes Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law, who emphasizes that “We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis right now. There have been so many unconstitutional and illegal actions in the first 18 days of the Trump presidency. We never have seen anything like this.” It’s not coming. We’re in the thick of it. The speaker of the House — an avowed Christian extremist insurrectionist — will not say out loud that Trump and Elon Musk should obey court orders. JD Vance and Elon Musk are pretty sure the answer to that is “no,” and that courts should have to physically make them obey orders.
Because guess what? The speaker of the House is one of those domestic enemies people swear to protect America from, and so is the president, and so is the vice president, and so is their unelected South African apartheid terrorist buddy.
On this issue, at least. The other senator from KS can be read toward the end of the article, and he’s just a maga nut, so read at your own discretion. I’m wondering if he’s beginning dementia, or else how he earned an MD. Anyway, here’s this. Sen. Moran can usually get an R coalition happening, and KS is not the only ag state who stands to not only lose, but to literally watch crops rot waiting to be shipped to people who need to eat. Wasting food is a cardinal sin, IMO.
TOPEKA — U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas said a freeze on federal funding and change at the U.S. Agency for International Development left $340 million in lifesaving food grown in the United States sitting at domestic ports awaiting delivery to locations around the world where people were starving.
On Friday, President Donald Trump said he wanted to shut down USAID, which served as the federal government’s primary provider of development and humanitarian aid worldwide. Much of USAID’s funding has been frozen. Thousands of USAID employees expect to be indefinitely suspended or laid off as the Trump administration, in collaboration with billionaire Elon Musk, worked to gut an agency the president said was operated by “radical lunatics.”
Moran, among farm-state senators on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said he encouraged Marco Rubio, the U.S. secretary of state and acting administrator of USAID, to make certain U.S.-grown commodities were promptly shipped and distributed to people in need.
The World Food Programme estimated $340 million in U.S. food aid was idled at domestic ports by order of the Trump administration. In total, $566 million in U.S.-grown commodities designated for humanitarian purposes was locked down in warehouses throughout the world.
“Time is running out before this lifesaving aid perishes,” Moran said. “Food stability is essential to political stability, and our food aid programs help feed the hungry, bolster our national security and provide an important market for our farmers, especially when commodity prices are low.”
Moran said there was a “moral component to food aid,” but he understood administrative issues with U.S. aid programs had to be addressed. That reform, he said, must go beyond presidential directives so Congress could be “involved in making the decision of what this should look like.”
Rep. Tracey Mann, the Kansas Republican on the House Agriculture Committee, has led relaunch of the bipartisan House Hunger Caucus dedicated to international and domestic hunger and food insecurity. He said in a previous statement that growing up on a Kansas farm taught him the sacred responsibility of feeding people.
“Hunger destabilizes countries, starts wars, eliminates markets and causes human suffering. America benefits on multiple levels from making investments that address it,” Mann said. “America is the leader of the free world, which comes with certain responsibilities. Addressing global hunger is both the morally right and strategically wise thing do to.”
‘Irresponsibility’
U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids, a Kansas Democrat also on the House Agriculture Committee, said dismantling USAID would have ramifications in terms of world hunger and the future of Kansas agriculture.
“Elon Musk’s reckless and illegal shutdown of USAID isn’t lowering prices as promised — it’s hurting our economy, national security and hardworking Kansans,” Davids said. “My team has heard from many who have lost their jobs, small businesses facing bankruptcy and Kansas farmers struggling to sell their crops. This level of irresponsibility cannot go unchecked.”
USAID’s website said at midnight Friday all USAID direct-hire personnel would be “placed on administrative leave globally, with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission-critical functions, core leadership and specially designated programs.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has facilitated the purchase of U.S. commodities funneled into the USAID pipeline. USAID has been responsible for booking cargo ships to deliver food aid and to coordinate distribution of assistance in various countries.
USDA paused the purchase of food for USAID purposes in response to Trump’s executive order establishing a 90-day freeze on funding. Rubio issued a temporary waiver for food and other lifesaving assistance, but there was confusion about what qualified for the exemption. U.S.-grown agriculture products in domestic ports included wheat, sorghum, rice, lentils, peas as well as vegetable or sunflower oils.
USAID, with a staff of approximately 10,000, also has oversight of U.S. disaster relief and health initiatives in over 100 countries. (snip-MORE. The next graf is our insane senator explaining that he thought he saw awful things happening, meanwhile literal food is actually spoiling while he tells us of his hallucinations. I’d have to take the puter to the carwash to get the stupid off if I copy it to paste here. However, a few of the farmers who grow this food also have cogent commentary, so it’s worth clicking through to finish the article. Everyone but Marshall and Estes are aware of the national security element of this stupidity.)
Illustration by Erin Aulov/POLITICO (source image via Getty)
By James Romoser James Romoser is POLITICO’s legal editor.
Less than two weeks have passed since the last presidential inauguration, but try to imagine the next one.
It’s Jan. 20, 2029. The nation has weathered another tumultuous four years under Donald Trump. Democrats are desperate for the Trump era, at long last, to be over. Republicans have relished it.
Now, imagine this: The chief justice begins to deliver the oath of office. The next president raises his right hand and says:
“I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear…”
It’s the stuff of liberal nightmares and MAGA dreams: a third Trump term.
But it can’t happen, right? After all, the Constitution imposes an explicit two-term limit on the presidency — even if those two terms, like Trump’s, are non-consecutive. “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” the 22nd Amendment mandates.
Even Trump, notorious for bending norms and breaking laws, couldn’t possibly circumvent that clear constitutional stricture, right?
Don’t be so sure.
Around the globe, when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits. And Trump, of course, already has a track record of trying to remain in office beyond his lawful tenure.
“Anyone who says that obviously the 22nd Amendment will deter Trump from trying for a third term has been living on a different planet than the one I’ve been living on,” says Ian Bassin, who was an associate White House counsel for President Barack Obama and is now the executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.
If Trump decided he wanted to hold onto power past 2028, there are at least four paths he could try:
He could generate a movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment directly.
He could exploit a little-noticed loophole in the amendment that might allow him to run for vice president and then immediately ascend back to the presidency.
He could run for president again on the bet that a pliant Supreme Court won’t stop him.
Or he could simply refuse to leave — and put a formal end to America’s democratic experiment.
Each path would face serious political, legal and practical impediments. But the prospect of a third Trump term shouldn’t be dismissed with a hand wave.
Trump, after all, is definitely not dismissing the prospect. He’s been openly floating it for years.
In August 2020, he told supporters: “We are going to win four more years. And then after that, we’ll go for another four years.”
On Nov. 13, 2024, a week after winning his second term, he told House Republicans: “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say, ‘He’s so good we’ve got to figure something else out.’”
And just last weekend, he said: “It will be the greatest honor of my life to serve not once but twice — or three or four times,” before quickly adding, “Nah, it will be to serve twice.”
Perhaps it’s all just a big joke to Trump. Perhaps he’s baiting the media. But the fact that he keeps talking about it shows that it’s on his mind. It’s time to take the prospect literally — and seriously.
Why Trump Might Do It
There are a couple of threshold objections to this thought experiment, and they’re not constitutional but physical and psychological: Would Trump, who will be 82 at the end of his second term, be healthy and fit enough to serve a third? And if so, would he even want one?
Maybe. But if he has the capacity to continue in office, Trump might have strong incentives to try to retain the powers and privileges of the presidency.
Consider a key reason he ran in 2024: the desire to elude his criminal cases. That strategy worked. The two federal cases against him had to be shut down after his victory due to the Justice Department’s longstanding position that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. His election further doomed the already faltering case against him in Georgia as well. And in the New York hush money case, the only one of the four to reach trial and result in a conviction, Trump’s victory ensured that he got away with a sentence of “unconditional discharge” — even less than a slap on the wrist.
Still, Trump may not be entirely free of all his legal problems at the end of his second term. When special counsel Jack Smith reluctantly dismissed his federal charges against Trump last month, he explicitly reserved the ability for a future Justice Department to revive and refile the charges after Trump leaves office. If a Democrat seems well positioned to win the 2028 election, Trump may fear that those charges might come back to life.
And who knows what Trump might do in the next four years that could trigger new criminal liability? The Supreme Court’s sweeping immunity decision last year would be an obstacle to charging him for anything he does while president, but it wouldn’t be an insurmountable one. If there are serious calls to prosecute Trump again after his second term, it is not hard to imagine him concluding that the best way to stave off those efforts is to simply remain president.
Aside from using the office as a legal force field, Trump may be propelled by another, more basic motive: raw power. This is the raison d’etre for autocratically minded leaders around the world, especially those who erode democratic institutions and engage in quasi-messianic rhetoric.
“Presidents tend to like their jobs, and there have been many attempts for them to overstay,” says Mila Versteeg, a law professor at the University of Virginia.
Versteeg co-authored a 2020 study that examined 234 heads of state in 106 countries in the 21st century. She found that one-third of them sought to circumvent legally imposed term limits. Many of them succeeded — typically not by directly disobeying the law, but rather by exploiting gaps and weaknesses in their constitutional systems or by convincing meek courts to bless their consolidation of power.
“In the countries where this has happened, the rule of law is much weaker than in the United States,” Versteeg says. “But we shouldn’t dismiss it as impossible or unimaginable. It has happened around the world.”
How Trump Might Do It
Assuming Trump wanted to make it happen here, could he succeed?
At first blush, the 22nd Amendment appears to be an absolute barrier. It was ratified in 1951 in response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s four-term presidency. Before Roosevelt, no president had ever run for reelection after serving two terms — a norm that dated back to George Washington.
Critically for Trump’s purposes, the amendment is not restricted to consecutive terms. Virtually every constitutional scholar agrees that the two-term limit applies to any two terms by a single person, even if those terms are not back-to-back.
But that is not the end of the matter. The rules in the Constitution are only as durable as the institutions that preserve and protect them. And Trump could chip away at them, or even try to defy them completely, through both legal and extralegal means. He is already seeking to transform the birthright citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment. Is there any reason to think he wouldn’t try something similar with the term limits provision of the 22nd?
Here are four things he could try.
Option 1
Change the Constitution
The most obvious route would be for Trump to persuade Americans to simply repeal the 22nd Amendment’s two-term limit. It’s perfectly permissible to repeal an amendment: We’ve already done it before, when we repealed the 18th Amendment’s prohibition on the sale of alcohol.
A formal repeal, though, would require a landslide of popular support that is far-fetched in today’s polarized nation. Two-thirds of both chambers of Congress would have to propose a new amendment, or two-thirds of the states would have to call for a constitutional convention to propose one. Then three-fourths of the states would have to ratify the proposed amendment. Even if Trump remains popular among Republicans, it’s hard to imagine him garnering the supermajorities needed.
And The American Conservative began laying the groundwork for the idea even before Trump won last year. Back in March, it published a piece arguing that, if Trump were to secure a second term, the 22nd Amendment should be repealed to allow him to seek a third.
“If, by 2028, voters feel Trump has done a poor job, they can pick another candidate; but if they feel he has delivered on his promises, why should they be denied the freedom to choose him once more?” wrote Peter Tonguette, a contributing editor at the magazine.
Some Democrats, meanwhile, are not taking any chances. Rep. Dan Goldman of New York proposed a resolution last fall reiterating that the 22nd Amendment applies to non-consecutive terms.
And a few blue states are trying to revoke their long-dormant requests for a constitutional convention. They fear Republicans could use those requests — which in some cases were made decades or even centuries ago — to trigger a convention and propose a slew of unpredictable amendments. One prominent Trump ally in Congress, House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington of Texas, believes the required threshold — requests from two-thirds of the states — has already been met to spark a convention.
Trump himself has not explicitly endorsed an amendment push. But on Monday, he shared a social media post from Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick lauding Trump’s first week in office. “People are already talking about changing the 22nd Amendment so he can serve a third term,” Patrick wrote. “If this pace and success keeps up for 4 years, and there is no reason it won’t, most Americans really won’t want him to leave.”
Option 2
Sidestep the Constitution
If formally amending the two-term limit is off the table, another option is to find a loophole. As it turns out, the 22nd Amendment has a big one.
The text bars anyone from being “elected” to a third presidential term. It says nothing about a person becoming president for a third term by some other legal avenue — for instance, by being elected vice president and then ascending back to the presidency through the death, resignation or removal of the person at the top of the ticket.
This technicality seems to permit a shrewd scenario. Imagine that, near the end of Trump’s second term, some other person — call him JD Vance — wins the Republican nomination for 2028. Vance chooses Trump as his vice-presidential running mate — and pledges that, if he wins, he will resign on Day 1 and hand the presidency back to Trump.
The campaign slogan writes itself: “Vote Vance to Make Trump President Again.”
It might seem like a far-fetched parlor trick. Or it could be seen as the most artful deal Trump ever struck. Either way, if it’s 2028 and Trump retains the grip on the Republican Party that he had in 2016, 2020 and 2024, it is not hard to picture the idea gaining traction. And if Vance wouldn’t agree to cooperate, Trump could find some other lackey who would.
The gambit, of course, would carry some risk to Trump. He would have to trust Vance or his hand-picked placeholder to follow through on the promise to step down from the presidency immediately and allow Trump to re-ascend to the office. In theory, that person could renege on the deal after the election and keep the presidency. But if the ticket had run on an explicit pledge that Trump would be the one in the Oval Office, the political pressure to honor the deal (and honor the will of the voters) would be enormous. And if Vance or some other politician wants a future in the GOP and a real shot at the White House in the future, maintaining support from Trump would be paramount.
Trump, who revels in public expressions of fealty from his subordinates, might find the whole arrangement enticing.
“It would not be surprising — if the president were interested in the presidency again — that he would seek to go down this path,” says Bruce Peabody, a law professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University.
Peabody foreshadowed the possibility long before Trump emerged on the political scene. In a 1999 law review article (and in a 2016 follow-up), he explored the potential for a twice-elected president to serve in other high-ranking government roles that might allow them to become president again. Peabody concluded that the scenario is not only constitutional, but politically plausible.
You might even call it the Putin-Medvedev scenario. When, in 2008, term limits barred Putin from continuing to rule Russia, he served for a time as “prime minister” under President Dmitry Medvedev. Of course, Putin continued to pull the strings, and he eventually returned to power formally.
Here in the U.S., a different part of the Constitution arguably complicates the loophole. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, says that no one “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President.” So if Trump were disqualified from serving a third presidential term under the 22nd Amendment, then he also wouldn’t seem to be eligible to become vice president under the 12th — and in that case, the loophole wouldn’t work.
But that’s just the thing: The 22nd Amendment doesn’t say Trump would be ineligible to serve as president for a third term. It just says he is ineligible to run for a third term (or, more precisely, to be elected to a third term). So the 12th Amendment’s eligibility provision doesn’t seem to foreclose Trump using the loophole.
“You could make a case that it’s pretty clear that a twice-elected president is still eligible,” Peabody says. “You could also make a case that it’s murky. But I don’t find the argument terribly convincing that it’s a slam dunk that he isn’t eligible.”
Option 3
Ignore the Constitution
If the first two options are too difficult or too convoluted, Trump could try something even bolder, and far more Trumpian. He could simply run for a third term and see if anyone stops him.
The question of who would do so, and how, is surprisingly difficult. Would the Republican National Committee block him from seeking the party’s nomination for 2028? Surely not, if he still dominates the GOP. Would states refuse to put him on their ballots? Some certainly would, but that would spark litigation. The issue would then wind up at the Supreme Court — a court that is already quite sympathetic to Trump’s interests and, in four years, may be populated with even more Trump appointees than it has today.
Still, would the high court really green-light a flagrant violation of the 22nd Amendment? It sounds implausible now, even for this very conservative court. But it’s important to consider the context in which such a case would be heard.
It would be the middle of the 2028 election season. Trump would be out on the campaign trail, acting like a candidate, insisting he is running again for the good of the country. The RNC would have proudly proclaimed him its nominee. Imagine half of Americans continue to support him unconditionally.
It does not take a Supreme Court cynic to see that, in such a climate, declaring Trump ineligible to run would take immense political courage from the justices.
“All you need is a court that is willing to be your faithful helper,” Versteeg says, adding that she believes it’s unlikely — though not impossible — that the current court would fall in line for Trump.
Bassin, of Protect Democracy, is more blunt.
“The court’s gonna tell the Republican Party that they can’t run their candidate?” he asks. “I don’t think so.”
In fact, the country and the court have already experienced a similar conundrum.
Many legal scholars believe Trump was constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 because the 14th Amendment bars anyone from holding federal office if they previously engaged in an insurrection. But when Colorado sought to enforce that provision, citing Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, and removed Trump from its ballot, the Supreme Court swiftly stepped in. Only Congress, not states, can enforce the insurrection ban, the court declared — even though the 14th Amendment itself contains no such limitation.
That ruling was widely seen as being at least partially results-driven: Whatever the legal arguments, the justices simply were never going to let individual states kick the leading Republican candidate off their ballots. The same calculus might apply if Trump tried to run again in 2028.
One might respond that the 22nd Amendment’s command (“No person shall be elected” as president “more than twice”) is far clearer than the 14th Amendment’s abstruse language about insurrections. But litigation has a way of muddying even the most crystal-clear language, and pro-Trump lawyers will have plenty of opportunities to make the two-term limit seem ambiguous.
Perhaps they’ll find some originalist argument for why the two-term limit doesn’t mean what it seems.
Perhaps they’ll find some reason that the amendment’s ratification was procedurally improper. Versteeg points out that such procedural arguments are common tactics to erode constitutional term limits abroad.
Or perhaps they’ll argue that some other, more fundamental provision of the Constitution supersedes the 22nd Amendment’s term limit. For instance, maybe Trump has a due process right to run for president, or maybe voters have a due process right to vote for their preferred candidate, regardless of what the 22nd Amendment says.
None of these arguments is legally strong. Virtually all constitutional scholars would reject them today. But simply by advancing the arguments in court, and in the public sphere, Trump’s lawyers can make the issue seem debatable. And, as the legal scholar Jack Balkin has shown, that process of normalization can transform outlandish constitutional claims into formal doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court.
Option 4
Defy the Constitution
There is one final way Trump could try to hold onto power. This last option would not involve amending the Constitution. It would not require a deal with a running mate willing to hand the presidency back to Trump using a technicality. It would not even require Trump to go through the trouble of running again.
He could simply refuse to leave office.
It’s hard to predict what that would look like (though Trump’s attempts to cling to power after the 2020 election might offer some clues). One obvious move in the autocrat’s playbook is to cancel an election by declaring some sort of national emergency. The president, of course, has no legal authority to call off or postpone elections, but that doesn’t mean Trump wouldn’t try it anyway — perhaps by seizing on a natural disaster or even starting a war. Alternatively, perhaps Trump would allow the 2028 election to take place with other candidates but declare the outcome rigged and decide to stay in power himself.
The last time Trump tried to cling to the presidency, he used lies about election fraud to undermine the 2020 results and then encouraged his supporters to go “wild” in Washington the day his defeat was certified. Four years from now, could he pursue a power grab even more brazen and lawless? It’s an extraordinary thing to contemplate. And scholars of authoritarianism point out that, when norms like term limits die, the culprit is usually not a single and obvious coup. Rather, the erosion happens slowly, often with the acquiescence of people and institutions within the constitutional system.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and the nation’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will survive again.
One thing, though, is clear: The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
After Senate President Ben Albritton and House Speaker Daniel Perez rejected his immigration proposals earlier in the day and put forward one of their own, DeSantis slammed their plan as “weak” and claimed they were “gutting” his proposal to require all law enforcement officials in the state to work with federal immigration enforcement officials. (snip-this was the newest update at 8 PM when I set this up. There could be more by now!)
Scottie's Playtime 