Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

How Trump could try to stay in power after his second term ends

Published

on

President Donald Trump told an NBC interviewer on March 30, 2025, that he was “not joking” about a third term as president, despite such a term being barred by the Constitution.

“There are methods which you could do it,” he said in the interview.

For months, Trump has been hintingin joking tones – that he’s interested in finding a way to continue in the White House past the legal limit of two terms. But the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is clear that Trump can’t be elected again. The text of the amendment states:

“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

That amendment was passed in response to Franklin Roosevelt’s four elections to the presidency. Since George Washington had stepped down at the end of his second term, no president had sought a third term, much less a fourth. The amendment was clearly meant to prevent presidents from serving more than two terms in office.

Franklin D. Roosevelt delivers his fourth inaugural address on Jan. 20, 1945.
Abbie Rowe, National Archives and Records Administration. Office of Presidential Libraries. Harry S. Truman Library, via Wikimedia Commons

Because Trump has been elected president twice already, the plain language of the amendment bars him from being elected a third time. Some have argued that since Trump’s terms were nonconsecutive, the amendment doesn’t apply to him. But the amendment makes no distinction between consecutive and nonconsecutive terms in office.

Though the 22nd Amendment prohibits Trump from being elected president again, it does not prohibit him from serving as president beyond Jan. 20, 2029. The reason for this is that the 22nd Amendment only prohibits someone from being “elected” more than twice. It says nothing about someone becoming president in some other way than being elected to the office.

Skirting the rules

There are a few potential alternate scenarios. Under normal circumstances, they would be next to impossible. But Donald Trump has never been a normal president.

On issue after issue, Trump has pushed the outer limits of presidential power. Most importantly, he has already shown his willingness to bend or even break the law to stay in office. And while Trump claims he’s only joking when he floats the idea of a third term, he has a long history of using “jokes” as a way of floating trial balloons.

Furthermore, once he leaves office, Trump could once again face the prospect of criminal prosecution and possibly jail time, further motivating him to stay in power. As Trump’s second term progresses, don’t be surprised if Americans hear more about how he might try to stay in office. Here is what the Constitution says about that prospect.

Other ways to become president

Nine people have served as president without first being elected to that office. John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford were all vice presidents who stepped into the office when their predecessors either died or resigned.

The 22nd Amendment does not bar a term-limited president from being elected vice president. On the other hand, the 12th Amendment does state that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of the President shall be eligible to that of the Vice-President of the United States.”

It’s not clear whether this restriction applies to a two-term president who is ineligible for a third term because of the 22nd Amendment – or whether it merely imposes on the vice president the Constitution’s other criteria for presidential eligibility, namely that they be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.

That question would have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Should the justices decide in Trump’s favor – as they have recently on questions regarding the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause and presidential immunity – then the 2024 ticket of Trump-Vance could become the 2028 Vance-Trump ticket. If elected, Vance could then resign, making Trump president again.

No resignation needed

But Vance would not even have to resign in order for a Vice President Trump to exercise the power of the presidency. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution states that if a president declares that “he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office … such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”

In fact, the U.S. has had three such acting presidents – George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Kamala Harris. All of them held presidential power for a brief period when the sitting president underwent anesthesia during medical procedures; Cheney did it twice.

In this scenario, shortly after taking office on Jan. 20, 2029, President Vance could invoke the 25th Amendment by notifying the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate that he is unable to discharge the duties of president. He would not need to give any reason or proof of this incapacity.

Vice President Trump would then become acting president and assume the powers of the presidency until such time as President Vance issued a new notification indicating that he was able to resume his duties as president.

‘Tandemocracy’

But exercising the power of the presidency doesn’t even necessarily require being president or acting president.

Trump has repeatedly expressed his admiration for autocratic Russian President Vladimir Putin, so he might want to follow the example of the Medvedev-Putin “tandemocracy.”

Russian leaders Vladimir Putin, left, and Dmitry Medvedev have collaborated to hold power for more than a quarter-century, despite laws imposing term limits or other restrictions.
Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images

In 2008, term limits in the Russian constitution prevented Putin from running for president after two consecutive terms. Instead, he selected a loyal subordinate, Dmitry Medvedev, to run for president.

When elected, Medvedev appointed Putin as his prime minister. By most accounts, Putin remained firmly in power and made most of the important decisions. Following this example, a future Republican president could appoint Trump to an executive branch position from which he could still exercise power.

In 2012, Putin was able to run for president again, and he and Medvedev once again swapped roles. Since then, Putin has succeeded in amending the Russian Constitution to effectively allow him to remain president for the rest of his life.

Using a figurehead

Then again, Trump might just want to avoid all of these legal subterfuges by following the example of George and Lurleen Wallace. In 1966, the Alabama Constitution prevented Wallace from running for a third consecutive term as governor. Still immensely popular and unwilling to give up power, Wallace chose to have his wife, Lurleen, run for governor. It was clear from the beginning that Lurleen was just a figurehead for George, who promised to be an adviser to his wife, at a salary of $1 a year.

The campaign’s slogan of “Two Governors, One Cause,” made it clear that a vote for Lurleen was really a vote for George.

Lurleen won in a landslide.

According to one account of her time in office, the Wallaces had “something of a Queen-Prime Minister relationship: Mrs. Wallace handles the ceremonial and formal duties of state. Mr. Wallace draws the grand outlines of state policy and sees that it is carried out.”

Trump’s wife was not born a U.S. citizen and therefore isn’t eligible to be president. But as the head of the Republican Party, Trump could ensure that the next GOP presidential candidate was a member of his family or some other person who would be absolutely loyal and obedient to him. If that person went on to win the White House in 2028, Trump could serve as an unofficial adviser, allowing him to continue to wield the power of the presidency without the actual title.

This is an updated version of a story that was originally published on Jan. 16, 2025.

Philip Klinkner, James S. Sherman Professor of Government, Hamilton College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

Lunar Gateway faces delays and funding debate amid Artemis ambitions

Published

on

What’s the point of a space station around the Moon?

Berna Akcali Gur, Queen Mary University of London

The Lunar Gateway is planned space station that will orbit the Moon. It is part of the Nasa‑led Artemis programme. Artemis aims to return humans to the Moon, establishing a sustainable presence there for scientific and commercial purposes, and eventually reach Mars.

However, the modular space station now faces delays, cost concerns and potential US funding cuts. This raises a fundamental question: is an orbiting space station necessary to achieve lunar objectives, including scientific ones?

The president’s proposed 2026 budget for Nasa sought to cancel Gateway. Ultimately, push back from within the Senate led to continued funding for the lunar outpost. But debate continues among policymakers as to its value and necessity within the Artemis programme.

Cancelling Gateway would also raise deeper questions about the future of US commitment to international cooperation within Artemis. It would therefore risk eroding US influence over global partnerships that will define the future of deep space exploration.

Gateway was designed to support these ambitions by acting as a staging point for crewed and robotic missions (such as lunar rovers), as a platform for scientific research and as a testbed for technologies crucial to landing humans on Mars.

It is a multinational endeavour. Nasa is joined by four international partners, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency (Esa), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre.

Schematic of the Lunar Gateway.
The Lunar Gateway.
Nasa

Most components contributed by these partners have already been produced and delivered to the US for integration and testing. But the project has been beset by rising costs and persistent debates over its value.

If cancelled, the US abandonment of the most multinational component of the Artemis programme, at a time when trust in such alliances is under unprecedented strain, could be far reaching.

It will be assembled module by module, with each partner contributing components and with the possibility of additional partners joining over time.

Strategic aims

Gateway reflects a broader strategic aim of Artemis, to pursue lunar exploration through partnerships with industry and other nations, helping spread the financial cost – rather than as a sole US venture. This is particularly important amid intensifying competition – primarily with China.

China and Russia are pursuing their own multinational lunar project, a surface base called the International Lunar Research Station. Gateway could act as an important counterweight, helping reinforce US leadership at the Moon.

In its quarter-century of operation, the ISS has hosted more than 290 people from 26 countries, alongside its five international partners, including Russia. More than 4,000 experiments have been conducted in this unique laboratory.

In 2030, the ISS is due to be succeeded by separate private and national space stations in low Earth orbit. As such, Lunar Gateway could repeat the strategic, stabilising role among different nations that the ISS has played for decades.

However, it is essential to examine carefully whether Gateway’s strategic value is truly matched by its operational and financial feasibility.

It could be argued that the rest of the Artemis programme is not dependant on the lunar space station, making its rationales increasingly difficult to defend.

Some critics focus on technical issues, others say the Gateway’s original purpose has faded, while others argue that lunar missions can proceed without an orbital outpost.

Sustainable exploration

Supporters counter that the Lunar Gateway offers a critical platform for testing technology in deep space, enabling sustainable lunar exploration, fostering international cooperation and laying the groundwork for a long term human presence and economy at the Moon. The debate now centres on whether there are more effective ways to achieve these goals.

Despite uncertainties, commercial and national partners remain dedicated to delivering their commitments. Esa is supplying the International Habitation Module (IHAB) alongside refuelling and communications systems. Canada is building Gateway’s robotic arm, Canadarm3, the UAE is producing an airlock module and Japan is contributing life support systems and habitation components.

Gateway’s Halo module at a facility in Arizona operated by aerospace company Northrop Grumman.
Nasa / Josh Valcarcel

US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for developing the Habitat and Logistics Outpost (Halo), and American firm Maxar is to build the power and propulsion element (PPE). A substantial portion of this hardware has already been delivered and is undergoing integration and testing.

If the Gateway project ends, the most responsible path forward to avoid discouraging future contributors to Artemis projects would be to establish a clear plan to repurpose the hardware for other missions.

Cancellation without such a strategy risks creating a vacuum that rival coalitions, could exploit. But it could also open the door to new alternatives, potentially including one led by Esa.

Esa has reaffirmed its commitment to Gateway even if the US ultimately reconsiders its own role. For emerging space nations, access to such an outpost would help develop their capabilities in exploration. That access translates directly into geopolitical influence.

Space endeavours are expensive, risky and often difficult to justify to the public. Yet sustainable exploration beyond Earth’s orbit will require a long-term, collaborative approach rather than a series of isolated missions.

If the Gateway no longer makes technical or operational sense for the US, its benefits could still be achieved through another project.

This could be located on the lunar surface, integrated into a Mars mission or could take an entirely new form. But if the US dismisses Gateway’s value as a long term outpost without ensuring that its broader benefits are preserved, it risks missing an opportunity that will shape its long term influence in international trust, leadership and the future shape of space cooperation.The Conversation

Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

South Korea introduces AI job protection legislation

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.

Published

on

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.


South Korean lawmakers are taking bold steps to protect workers from the growing impact of AI on employment. The proposed legislation aims to safeguard jobs and support workers transitioning into new roles as machines increasingly enter the workforce.

Professor Karen Sutherland of Uni SC joins Ticker to break down what these changes mean for employees and industries alike. She explains how the laws are designed to balance technological innovation with workers’ rights, and why proactive measures are crucial as AI adoption accelerates.

With major companies like Hyundai Motor introducing advanced robots, labour unions have raised concerns about fair treatment and the future of human labour. Experts say South Korea’s approach is faster and more comprehensive than similar initiatives in the United States and European Union, aiming to secure livelihoods while improving the quality of life for displaced workers.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIJobs #SouthKorea #FutureOfWork #Automation #TechPolicy #LaborRights #WorkforceInnovation #Ticker


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

U.S. ambassador responds to NATO criticism at Munich Security Conference

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.

Published

on

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.


At the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. ambassador to NATO faced tough questions on global order as European allies explored greater defense autonomy amid rising geopolitical tensions. The discussion highlighted the challenges NATO faces in maintaining unity while responding to evolving threats.

The ambassador addressed criticisms directly, emphasizing the importance of transatlantic cooperation and NATO’s role in ensuring international security. European nations voiced concerns about independent defense capabilities and the impact of hybrid warfare from Russia on regional stability.

Oz Sultan from Sultan Interactive Group provides analysis.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#MunichSecurityConference #NATO #GlobalSecurity #DefenseAutonomy #Geopolitics #TransatlanticAlliance #HybridWarfare #USForeignPolicy


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now