The New Yorker:

Donald Trump made gestures toward seeking a third term—before walking it back. What’s he up to? The legal writer Ruth Marcus joins Michael Luo to figure it out.

Michael Luo
Executive editor

Last Thursday, during an interview with The Economist, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former White House chief strategist, asserted, “Trump is going to be President in ’28,” and alluded to “a plan” that would make this possible. On Monday, when asked about the possibility of a third term, Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he “would love to do it,” only to acknowledge on Wednesday, in another press gaggle, that “it’s pretty clear, I’m not allowed to run.” I decided to ask Ruth Marcus, one of the magazine’s legal writers, what she made of all the chatter about a third term.

This conversation has been edited and condensed.

Michael Luo: Ruth, you and I were together over the weekend for a panel at The New Yorker Festival, and you told me that Bannon’s musings about a third Trump term was, essentially, “crazy talk”—and now Trump seems to have conceded this. What do you think is going on here?

Ruth Marcus: To be clear: it’s not crazy, in tactical, political terms, for Bannon to float this notion and for Trump, as he initially did, to fan the flames. It’s crazy to imagine that Donald Trump will be President on January 21, 2029, after his term is over and he is no longer constitutionally eligible for the office.

So what was this fire drill all about? I’ll take off my lawyer hat and put on my political-pundit hat, and note that other Presidents in their second terms, before and after the Twenty-second Amendment, have chafed at the idea that they’re time-limited, by norm or by law, and that they are therefore lame ducks. For Trump, keeping the hope of a third term alive has multiple benefits. It energizes a base that loves the idea. It keeps him relevant for longer. And it drives the left bonkers to see “Trump 2028” hats on the Resolute desk—which, from Trump’s point of view, is a good in itself and also serves as a useful distraction mechanism. I mean, shouldn’t we be having a highfalutin conversation about the legality of blowing up alleged drug traffickers? We should—but Trump would probably rather distract us.

Go to link