Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — U.S. stocks seesawed between gains and losses on Monday in the lead up to a promised fresh round of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on April 2, which he has dubbed “liberation day.”
The market rollercoaster came a day after Goldman Sachs raised its odds of a recession within the next year from 20% to 35%, citing the tariffs. The move marked the latest in an upsurge of recession fears on Wall Street in recent weeks.
A policy of wide-ranging levies on foreign goods could tip the U.S. into a recession, experts said. They pointed to risks of a slowdown for businesses mired in higher tax costs, as well as a shopping slump as consumers curtail spending to pad their savings to help weather price increases and a possible economic downturn.
The degree and duration of Trump’s forthcoming tariffs remains unknown, experts added, but they pointed to such uncertainty as another reason the economy could fall into a recession.
“If both businesses and consumers start to worry and pull back their spending, that is what can tip the U.S. over into a recession,” Kara Reynolds, an economist at American University, told ABC News.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, described potential tariffs on April 2 as “the fodder for an economic downturn.”
Trump has already announced a flurry of duties, including sector-specific tariffs targeting autos, steel and aluminum. The U.S. has also imposed levies on some goods from Mexico, Canada and China.
Over the weekend, Trump told reporters that the next round of tariffs could affect “all the countries.”
“The tariffs will be far more generous than those countries were to us, meaning they will be kinder than those countries were to the United States of America,” he said.
The Trump administration has largely declined to rule out the possibility of a recession. Speaking at the White House earlier this month, Trump said a “little disturbance” may prove necessary to rejuvenate domestic production and reestablish well-paying manufacturing jobs.
Experts generally define a recession by the shorthand metric of two consecutive quarters of decline in a nation’s inflation-adjusted gross domestic product, or GDP.
Tariffs could threaten economic growth and employment since duties slapped on imports risk increasing costs for businesses that rely on raw materials from abroad, some experts told ABC News.
Experts widely expect importers to pass along a share of the tariff burden to consumers in the form of higher prices, which could make the firms less competitive as they may struggle to retain customers who suffer sticker shock.
If business performance suffers, firms will likely freeze or reduce investment, threatening economic growth.
“As business investment goes down, that can trigger a recession,” Anne Villamil, a professor of economics at the University of Iowa, told ABC News.
Even the looming risk of tariffs can make shoppers uneasy, potentially sinking the economy further, experts said.
Consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity. In March, consumer confidence dropped to its lowest level since 2021, according to a survey conducted by The Conference Board.
As consumer attitudes sour, shoppers could encounter tariff-induced price increases, leaving buyers even more frustrated.
“It’s already showing up in consumer confidence,” Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University. “There is chaos and uncertainty around the tariff policy.”
By some key measures, however, the economy remains in solid shape. Hiring stands at robust levels alongside a historically low unemployment rate. Inflation sits well below a peak attained in 2022, though price increases register nearly a percentage point higher than the Fed’s goal of 2%.
Villamil, of the University of Iowa, acknowledged the strength of the economy in recent months. Still, she added, tariffs could plunge the U.S. into a downturn.
“The concern is that all of this policy uncertainty is putting the economy at risk,” Villamil said.
(NEW YORK) — In recent weeks stories have emerged about college students whisked off campuses by immigration agents – targeted for deportation based on their writings or activism – and detained in federal custody despite never being charged with a crime.
While the number of impacted students appears to be small — with Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicating around 300 students were targeted last week — the actions, part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, have sparked fear and questions about the rights these students have, especially free speech.
Experts, immigration attorneys and advocates told ABC News the Trump administration has been using an unprecedented application of immigration law to expedite their removals. The administration, for its part, maintains that it is following the law and has accused some of the students detained of showing support for Hamas and participating in movements that are “creating a ruckus,” Rubio said.
While legal experts have said that noncitizens are generally guaranteed the same free speech as American citizens, the Trump administration has argued that their presence in the United States is a privilege. As their cases move through federal courts, the students challenging their removals have the potential to reshape the law related to free speech and immigration, according to legal experts.
In the meantime, the students caught in the Trump administration’s crosshairs may be detained for months despite never being charged with any crimes because of the massive backlog of cases in U.S. immigration courts.
Here’s what the experts say there is to know about their rights:
What rights do student visa or green card holders have if they are threatened with deportation?
Once the Trump administration attempts to revoke a visa or green card – which grants permanent residency rather than a short-term stay in the US for a specific purpose — students still have the right to an immigration hearing to determine if their deportations are justified, according to Cheryl David, a New York immigration attorney.
“The level of due process that they may be entitled to will depend on what immigration status they have in the United States, and whether or not the Trump administration has a basis for revoking their lawful status in the United States that has any reasonable basis in law or not,” said Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School and director of its Immigrants’ Rights Clinic.
During those removal proceedings, noncitizens have the right to access a lawyer but are not guaranteed one like they would in a criminal court. If they are detained while they await their removal hearing, the noncitizens also have the right to file a habeas petition to challenge their detention.
Even though all the recent students who have had their visas revoked do not have criminal records, the Trump administration has insisted that they be detained while their cases play out, meaning they could spend more than six months behind bars without being charged with any crimes, according to retired Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr.
“The Trump administration has been a lot more aggressive than past administrations on putting people who have not been convicted of crimes into immigration detention,” said Yale-Loehr.
The Trump administration had justified the detentions by arguing that some of the students have supported terrorist activities, pose an ongoing threat to the United States, or threaten the country’s foreign policy interests.
Have past administrations revoked student visas?
The Trump administration’s policy of revoking student visas marks the most aggressive approach in more than two decades, according to immigration attorney Renata Castro.
“Because presidents have direct control over policies on the issuance of student visas by embassies and consulates, they are able to dial up or down the heat when It comes to issuing student visas from individuals of certain countries,” Castro said.
Following the 9/11 terror attacks, the George W. Bush administration implemented stricter immigration and student visas policies based on national security concerns. According to Castro, what makes the Trump administration’s revocations unique is that they are sometimes rooted on the exercise of free speech – a basis that could eventually be challenged in court.
“The government is looking at speech – the exercise of free speech – and using that to dig into perceived immigration violations so that they can revoke student visa,” she said.
What role might colleges and universities have related to deportations?
If a college or university expels a student for their campus activism, the students face a heightened risk of removal because they no longer have the student status required by their visa.
“If the school is not cooperating and they are still going to school, they’re not in violation of their student status,” said David. “Then the government would have to find another way to say that they’re removable from the United States.”
According to Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Trump administration’s recent crackdown has included more aggressive enforcement action on campuses, where some universities have cooperated with law enforcement.
“I have not seen before the kinds of aggressive tactics ICE is now taking to apprehend students in their dormitories, on campus or near campus for immigration enforcement,” said Chen.
Can a student be deported because they threaten U.S. foreign policy?
In some instances, the Trump administration has invoked a rarely-used law to justify removing noncitizens based on their impact on foreign policy. Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil and Georgetown University fellow Badar Khan Suri were both detained based on the law.
The provision, 8 U.S.C. § 237 (a)(4)(C)(i), allows the removal of noncitizens if their presence in the United States could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
According to an analysis of past immigration cases conducted by political scientists Graeme Blair and David Hausman, the United States has invoked that law only 14 times in history as a basis for a removal, including only two times since 2000 when it was the sole basis for removal.
“I’ve been doing this for 25 years. I’ve never seen this used,” said Cheryl David, a longtime immigration attorney.
To prove that a noncitizen threatens U.S. foreign policy, Yale-Loehr said the administration will have to submit sworn declarations or evidence to prove the person’s impact on foreign policy.
“If it is this foreign policy ground, you need a statement from the secretary of state saying the magic words, this person’s presence would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” he said.
Mukherjee, of Columbia University’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, called the use of the law “unprecedented and unconstitutional” and believes the policy will be shot down by the courts because it is at odds with the First Amendment.
“It’s important for the American public to keep in mind that the First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech for all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. This is long established constitutional law ruled on by the Supreme Court over decades,” she said.
The Trump administration has argued that the invocation of the law is a justified, lawful, and protects US interests.
What basis is the Trump administration using for the removals?
The Trump administration has alleged that some students have supported terrorists as a basis for their removal. To prove that, David said, they will need to demonstrate that they did more than simply practice their free speech.
“Because a person you know necessarily does an op-ed saying we think that Israel is committing genocide, that’s not going to be enough,” David. “But if they are handing out flyers and promoting activities that the government thinks are related to terrorism, then that could be grounds to say they did engage in terrorist activity.”
Authorities are also looking closely at visa applications.
Federal authorities alleged that Columbia graduate student and legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil – who was first detained based on his alleged impact on foreign policy — lied on his green card application. Experts said that examining visa applications may become a broader strategy for the Trump administration to justify deportations.
“If you don’t disclose information on a green card application that the government thinks was material to whether or not they would have admitted you to the United States, then they can allege that you committed fraud on that application,” said David.
Can a removal decision be appealed?
Noncitizens generally have the right to challenge an immigration judge’s decision with the Board of Immigration Appeals or in federal court; however, David noted that they might not be able to fully exercise their appeal if they are already in U.S. custody and removed before their appellate rights are exhausted.
“Unless a federal judge saves that deportation, that person is going to be deported from the United States,” David said.
While other presidents – including Barack Obama – have embraced a policy of swift deportations, the Trump administration appears to be testing the limits of the law, experts said.
Does the location where a noncitizen is detained during their immigration proceedings matter?
According to Castro, keeping the students detained while their cases move through the courts could prompt more people to self-deport – a policy the Trump administration has actively encouraged.
“When an individual is kept in detention, it’s almost to break their spirit, because now they don’t have the ability to work. They don’t have access to free legal representation. Their life is falling apart,” she said. “Migrants who self deport are usually the ones who haven’t committed a crime and look at themselves in the mirror and think, ‘I’m being treated like a criminal, even though I’m not one.’”
The process of granting a bond in immigration court is a “marathon” according to Castro that takes at least three weeks, and judges in some jurisdictions infrequently hear habeas cases filed by noncitizens.
In some cases, the Trump administration has relocated noncitizens from the district where they were arrested to ICE holding facilities in other states. The location where they are currently held could be impactful if or when they file a habeas petition in federal court, according to Nicholas Espíritu, deputy legal director at the National Immigration Law Center.
For noncitizens held in the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, Louisiana, they would end up filing their habeas petition in the more conservative Western District of Louisiana and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The move to another state could also complicate their legal representation and make it harder to communicate regularly with lawyers, said Espíritu.
“These individuals are students, and the idea that they are going to have the resources necessary kind of on their own to be able to secure that robust legal protection just demonstrates the way in which the actions taken by the federal government are really seeking to undermine, quite frankly, the ability for these individuals to have their case heard in court,” he said.
A vegetation fire in California rapidly spread to 1,000 acres on Sunday, prompting evacuations of parts of Inyo and Mono counties. (Cal Fire)
(BISHOP, CA) — A vegetation fire in California rapidly spread to 1,250 acres on Sunday, prompting evacuations of parts of Inyo and Mono counties.
The fire was first reported just after 2 p.m. PT near Highway 6 and Silver Canyon Road north of Bishop, California, a city east of Fresno, according to Cal Fire.
Officials named the fast-moving blaze the Silver Fire.
It remained at 0% containment as of 9 a.m. Monday.
Cal Fire said Sunday evening that the blaze crossed Highway 6, threatening multiple structures and power lines.
There are no known injuries associated with the fire, officials said.
Fighting the blaze was impacted by strong winds, with gusts reaching up to 35 mph at Bishop Airport, according to Cal Fire, which noted extreme turbulence grounded some firefighting aircraft.
The National Weather Service forecasts continued windy conditions for the region, with a High Wind Warning in effect through Monday evening.
ABC News’ Timmy Truong and Tristan Maglunog contributed to this report
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — A group of advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging Donald Trump’s recent executive order seeking to overhaul the U.S. election system, accusing the president of trying to enact “unlawful actions” to enforce “lawless mandates.”
The lawsuit alleges that Trump’s unilateral efforts to reshape voting in federal elections — including requiring proof of citizenship when registering and restricting mail-in voting deadlines — exceeds his authority as president and threatens to strip millions of their voting rights.
“The Order violates and subverts the separation of powers by lawlessly arrogating to the President authority to declare election rules by executive fiat,” the lawsuit alleged. “The Order is an attack on the constitutionally mandated checks and balances that keep American elections free and fair.”
The lawsuit — filed in the D.C. federal court by the Campaign Legal Center and State Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of a League of United Latin American Citizens, Secure Families Initiative and Arizona Students’ Association — asks a federal judge to block the implementation of parts of the order and force the Trump administration to rescind any guidance they issued.
It names a number of defendants, including the Executive Office of the President, the Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense, as well as the United States Election Assistance Commission and its commissioners — an independent government commissioner focused on election administration.
Trump’s executive order, signed last week, alleged that the United States “fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections.” The order instructs the Department of Justice to prosecute elections crimes in states the administration deems are not in compliance with federal law, requires the Department of Homeland Security to work with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to review state voter registration lists, and directs the Election Assistance Commission to withhold federal funding if states do not institute “uniform and nondiscriminatory” standards for counting votes.
“Under the Constitution, State governments must safeguard American elections in compliance with Federal laws that protect Americans’ voting rights and guard against dilution by illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error,” the order said.
Specifically, the executive order calls for proof of citizenship nationwide on the form used when registering to vote — a change from current election laws and a provision voting rights experts have taken issue with. Documents that can be used for proof, according to the order, include a passport, Real ID, a military ID card, or a valid federal or state ID.
But the lawsuit points out that the order does not accept identification documents issued by Tribal governments or birth certificates as forms of proof. The suit also raises questions about the approved methods, arguing that only half of Americans possess a passport and “most” Real IDs do not indicate citizenship.
Regardless, the lawsuit suggests the order’s direction to the Election Assistance Commission to change the form to add the proof of citizenship requirement could violate the Voter Registration Act of 1993, which according to the lawsuit gives the EAC “exclusive authority” to administer the form.
“In keeping with the NVRA’s intent to create a simple and easy-to-complete registration form, the NVRA specifies that the Federal Form may not “include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication,” the lawsuit states.
Trump’s order suggested that noncitizens can easily vote in federal elections, but experts have called noncitizen voting a “vanishingly rare phenomenon” that is easily prosecuted. According to a study of over 23 million votes cast in the 2016 election, officials identified only 30 suspected incidents of noncitizen voting, only 0.0001% of the total votes cast.
Separately, the executive order also takes aim at mail-in voting, making federal funding conditional on states setting a deadline for ballots to be received by Election Day. Trump — who was charged with multiple federal crimes for his effort to overturn the 2020 election in cases that were dropped once he was elected — has repeatedly suggested that mail-in ballots have led to an increase in voting fraud.
The lawsuit claims the provision about mail-in ballots is unlawful, arguing that “states have wide discretion and flexibility” to establish the time, place, and manner of federal elections under the Elections and Electors Clauses in the Constitution.
“Congress can enact election laws if it chooses, but absent a conflict with federal law, States have the power to establish and follow their own election laws,” the lawsuit states.
According to the suit, seventeen states, plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, have laws that allow ballots to be counted as long as they are mailed by Election Day and received by a certain deadline afterward.
“Many of these States have had such receipt deadlines for many years, and Congress has declined to pass any laws dictating ballot receipt deadlines,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit notes that Congress has “long established” that the federal Election Day is the first Tuesday in November, in addition to establishing the date that presidential electors must be appointed, but “has left further regulation in this area largely up to States.” The lawsuit says the U.S. Supreme Court “has said that while votes must be cast by Election Day, some aspects of the election process, such as tabulating all votes, will naturally take place after Election Day.”
“The Attorney General does not have the authority to ‘enforce’ the federal Election Day statutes, and the President cannot order her to do so. Nor does a State “violate” those statutes when it counts validly cast ballots mailed by Election Day that are received after Election Day if State law so allows,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit also suggests the executive order could make it harder for citizens abroad and those serving in the military to vote. The executive order signed by Trump directs to secretary of defense to update the form used by these groups to register and request an absentee ballot — called the “Federal Post Card Application” — to include a requirement of documentary proof of citizenship as well as “proof of eligibility to vote in elections in the State in which the voter is attempting to vote.”
The lawsuit notes this form is required by law as part of the the The Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, passed in 1986 to “protect the voting rights of Americans serving in the military, their families, and other U.S. citizens living abroad.” The suit claims the changes required by the order would be “impossible given the format required by Congress.”
“Neither the President nor the Secretary of Defense has any legal authority to disregard UOCAVA’s statutory requirement to make such a post card available to military and overseas voters,” the lawsuit states.
Together, these provisions would have a “significant impact” on voting rights., the lawsuit claims.
Members of LULAC — a Hispanic and Latin American civil rights organization — for example, would be harmed if some of its members “who are eligible to vote often do not have the requisite citizenship documents.” the lawsuit states. The organization expects that efforts to register voters “will plummet.”
The Arizona Students’ Association will similarly be harmed by the proof of citizenship requirement, the lawsuit states, despite it being required when voters register on the state form there.
“Even those members who are able to register face imminent harm. Some members will be able to obtain or access DPOC only by spending significant time, money, and/or effort to do so, and will face greater difficulty registering because of the DPOC Requirement,” the lawsuit said.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
(KING COUNTY, Wa.) — Armed gunmen broke into former Seattle Seahawks player Richard Sherman’s home with his family inside at the time, according to video he shared on social media from his residential security cameras.
The King County Sheriff’s Office said the break-in occurred just after midnight on Sunday, which was Sherman’s 37th birthday.
“House being robbed at gun point with my family in it isn’t what anyone wants for a birthday gift,” Sherman said. “Scary situation that my wife handled masterfully and kept my kids safe. If anyone has any info that can help find these people please reach out.”
The video shows three individuals busting through a window in Sherman’s home.
Police said the robbery remains an open and active investigation.
It is not clear if anything was taken from Sherman’s home. Investigators have seen the security camera footage and will use that and any other evidence to build the case, police said.
There have been no arrests and there are no suspects at this time.
Sherman, a cornerback, was a fifth round pick out of Stanford in 2011 and became the lynchpin of the Seahawks’ “Legion of Boom” defense. He spent seven seasons in Seattle, being named first-team All Pro three times and making the Pro Bowl five times.
Sherman won a Super Bowl with the Seahawks in 2014. He later played for the San Francisco 49ers for three seasons and finished his career with a brief stint in Tampa Bay. He currently works as a TV commentator for Amazon Prime’s Thursday Night Football.
The group allegedly stole jewelry, watches, cash and “other luxury merchandise” from the homes of two Kansas City Chiefs players — Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce — and burglarized the home of Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow, federal prosecutors said.
(WASHINGTON) — The Securities and Exchange Commission is continuing its $150 million lawsuit against Elon Musk that was brought during the Biden administration.
According to a court filing Monday, the tech billionaire and head of the Department of Government Efficiency has agreed to respond to the suit, which accuses him of misleading investors when he bought millions of dollars in Twitter stock in 2022, prior to his acquisition of the company.
The SEC brought the case against Musk on Jan. 14 in the waning days of the Biden administration, and a representative of the SEC served Musk with the complaint and a summons earlier this month — though Musk contests the validity of the service.
Under the terms of the agreement, Musk’s lawyers will file a response to the complaint by June 6, pending approval from the court.
“The parties respectfully submit that this compromise is reasonable and will conserve judicial resources,” the filing said.
Monday’s filing marks the first time a deadline for Musk to respond to the complaint has been raised by either party.
Musk’s lawyers could not immediately be reached for comment by ABC News.
“They spend their time on s— like this when there are so many actual crimes that go unpunished,” Musk said on X in January in response to the SEC’s suit.
(NEW YORK) — Stocks fell on Monday ahead of the expected introduction of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Wednesday, measures the president said will impact “all countries.”
The Dow Jones Industrial Average ticked down 10 points, or 0.03%, while the S&P 500 declined 0.7%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq plunged 1.5%.
Tesla, the electric carmaker led by billionaire Trump-advisor Elon Musk, dropped nearly 5%.
The downturn in U.S. markets followed a wave of selloffs worldwide.
Japan’s Nikkei index fell more than 4% and South Korea’s KOSPI slipped 3% after opening on Monday. In Europe, the British FTSE 100 fell by 1.18%, the German DAX index fell by 1.82% and France’s CAC 40 dropped by 1.76%.
Gold — a traditional safe-haven asset — reached a new record high of $3,128 per ounce.
Trump told reporters this weekend that his tariffs could affect “all the countries.”
“The tariffs will be far more generous than those countries were to us, meaning they will be kinder than those countries were to the United States of America,” he said.
“Over the decades, they ripped us off like no country has never been ripped off in history and we’re going to be much nicer than they were to us, but it’s substantial money for the country,” Trump said.
Auto tariffs of 25% are among those expected to come into effect on April 3. The measures will apply to imported passenger vehicles, including cars, SUVs, minivans, cargo vans and light trucks, according to a White House statement released last week.
Analysts widely expect the tariffs to raise prices for foreign-made cars, since importers will likely pass along a share of the tax burden to consumers.
Cars produced in the U.S. are also expected to undergo significant price hikes since manufacturers will bear higher costs for imported parts and face an uptick in demand as buyers seek out domestic alternatives, experts have told ABC News.
Trump dismissed concerns about auto tariffs this weekend. “The automakers are going to make a lot of money,” he said. “American automakers or international automakers, if you’re talking about them, are going to build in the United States.”
“The people that are going to make money are people that manufacture cars in the United States,” he continued. “Outside of the United States, that’s going to be up to them. I don’t care too much about that. But you have a lot of companies coming into the country to manufacture cars.”
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
John McDonnell/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has often mused, even joked, about seeking a third term, but over the weekend he made his strongest and most serious comments yet on a move that constitutional scholars ABC News spoke with call virtually impossible.
“I’m not joking,” he told NBC News “Meet the Press” moderator Kirsten Welker in a phone interview on Sunday, before adding it was “far too early to think about it.”
“There are methods which you could do it,” Trump said, including a scenario in which Vice President JD Vance ran at the top of the 2028 ticket with Trump as his running mate, only for Trump to assume the Oval Office after the election.
Legal and election experts told ABC News any attempt to win another four years as president would be an unprecedented breach of the Constitution.
“Trump may not want to rule out a third term but the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution does,” said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University and an expert in constitutional law.
The amendment states, in part: “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.”
It was ratified in 1951, years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt broke with the two-term tradition set by George Washington and secured a third term as World War II was breaking out.
“It would be completely unprecedented for a president to openly defy the dictates of the 22nd Amendment and, even more so, to attempt to run or serve again as president,” said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert at the University of North Carolina.
“The threats and insinuations no doubt thrill his base, but there is no constitutional basis for the current president to try to serve as president after two elected terms,” Gerhardt said.
The only way legal way for Trump to be able to run for a third term, experts said, would be to amend the Constitution — an incredibly unlikely outcome as it would take two-thirds of both the House and Senate, or two-thirds of the states agreeing to call a constitutional convention. Then, any change would require three-fourths of the states to sign on for ratification.
“This statement by Trump was brilliant in terms of capturing and diverting attention,” said Schultz. “His supporters love it and his detractors will rage over it. In the process, no one will talk about the price of eggs, tariffs and a shaky stock market.”
Experts break down ‘methods’ floated by Trump and his allies
As for Trump’s claim that one of the “methods” could be to run as Vance’s vice president and then be passed the baton, experts point to the 12th Amendment from 1804 as a barrier.
“The 12th Amendment states that anyone who is ineligible to be president is also deemed to be illegible to serve as vice president,” said Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at University of Wisconsin-Madison. “This means that Trump could not serve as vice president, which is the post he would need for the Vance scheme to be executed.”
Steve Bannon, a fierce Trump ally, has also floated what he’s called alternatives to allow Trump to run in 2028.
Bannon, in remarks at the New York Young Republican Club gala in December, has argued that he could run again as Trump’s two terms in office were not consecutive.
“Since it doesn’t actually say consecutive, I don’t know, maybe we do it again in ’28? Are you guys down for that? Trump ’28?” Bannon said.
Schultz said that argument doesn’t have a sound legal basis.
“The overall limit of serving as president for ten years is both textual proof on the bar to run for a third term and an indication of the intent of the congressional drafters that they did not want anyone serving for more than two terms,” Schultz said.
He added that measure “was put into place to allow for a situation where a president dies more than halfway into a term and the vice president succeeds that person. The Constitution thereby allows for the vice president to serve out the remaining term and then serve two more terms, for a total of ten years.”
What happens if Trump tries anyway?
Trump has already tested the bounds of the Constitution governing presidential power several times in the first months of his second term.
Several Democrats viewed his comments on Sunday as another escalation against the rule of law. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin wrote on X: “This is what dictators do.”
In the past, Republicans have largely played off Trump’s musings about a third term as a joke intended to rile his opposition. But just days after his inauguration, Republican hardliner Rep. Andy Ogles introduced a resolution calling for the extension of presidential term limits to allow Trump to seek another four years in the White House.
“A crisis could arise if Trump runs for president or vice president in 2028,” Burden said. “The Constitution prohibits serving in office but not running for office. If Republicans nominated him, they would be betting that they can violate the Constitution and somehow allow him to serve if he wins.”
If Trump attempted to run, it would be up to election officials and then ultimately the courts to decide. This played out in the 2024 campaign, when several states challenged his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The legal battle went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Trump’s favor.
“If an ineligible person such as Trump is permitted to run knowing that he is not eligible to serve, it is a dangerous collision course in which the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law would be seriously tested,” Burden said.
James Sample, a constitutional law expert at Hofstra University, said Trump would lose in court should he attempt to run again.
“Most of the Constitution is written in broad, textured, difficult to define terms. What is a speedy trial? What is cruel and unusual punishment? What is equal protection? How much process is due process? The 22nd Amendment, however, is black and white,” Sample said.
“But if you can succeed in turning questions that are that clear-cut into debates, then the overall goal of undermining the Constitution and undermining the rule of law and maximizing executive power is served even if you lose the particular battle,” he continued. “This particular battle is not a winnable battle. He is not going to serve a third term, but merely by framing this as a debate, he will succeed in further eroding respect for the Constitution.”
(ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.) — The New Mexico Republican Party headquarters was targeted in a suspected arson attack on Sunday, according to party officials.
At approximately 5:56 a.m. on Sunday, Albuquerque Fire Rescue was dispatched to the headquarters for a reported structure fire, officials said.
The flames were brought under control within five minutes of their arrival and there were no reported injuries, fire rescue said.
The structure suffered “damage to the front entryway and smoke damage throughout the building,” fire rescue said.
The words “ICE=KKK” were also spray-painted on the building, officials said.
The Republican Party of New Mexico said the incident was a “deliberate act of arson.”
“This horrific attack, fueled by hatred and intolerance, is a direct assault on our values, freedoms and our right to political expression,” party officials said in a statement on Sunday.
Party officials said this is not an isolated incident, claiming it is part of a “disturbing pattern of politically motivated violence that has plagued our country — fueled in part by the silence and implicit encouragement from progressive leaders who refuse to condemn these acts.”
Republican Party of New Mexico Chairwoman Amy Barela said those who “resort to violence to undermine our state and nation must be held accountable.”
“The Republican Party of New Mexico will not be silenced,” Barela said in a statement. “We will emerge from this stronger, more united and more determined to fight for the people of New Mexico and the future of our country.”
The Democratic Party of New Mexico said on X that it also “condemns the vandalism of the @NewMexicoGOP office as strongly as possible.”
“We firmly maintain that this sort of act has absolutely no place in our Democracy, & that peaceful discourse & organization are the only ways to approach political differences in our country,” the party wrote. “We hope whoever is responsible is found and held accountable.”
New Mexico Democratic Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez added, “Political violence is unacceptable, including the arson attack on New Mexico’s GOP headquarters. The perpetrators must be held accountable. Every American should be able to freely and safely participate in our democracy.”
Leticia Muñoz, the executive director of the State Republican Party of New Mexico, said she is “thankful to first responders and law enforcement who saved our office from burning to the ground.”
“My resolve is even stronger today to continue to ‘FIGHT’ for our state,” Muñoz said in a statement.
Albuquerque Fire Rescue is working with the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to investigate this incident, officials said.
Members of the Chicago White Sox grounds crew struggle to deploy the rain tarp in the bottom of the seventh inning as hail and rain delay a game against the Los Angeles Angels at Rate Field on March 30, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Matt Dirksen/Getty Images)
(CHICAGO) — Hundreds of thousands of customers were without power across the Midwest on Monday after deadly, severe weather battered the region on Sunday.
More than 310,000 customers are without power in Michigan Monday morning. Another 55,000 are without power in Wisconsin and 48,000 are in the dark in Indiana.
The National Weather Service said it recorded more than 200 wind damage reports and at least four tornadoes were reported across Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Five fatalities have been attributed to the storm.
Three children — a 2-year-old girl, her 4-year-old brother and their 11-year-old cousin — were killed when the car they were in was hit by a tree in Michigan, the Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s Office said. Weather appeared to be the main contributing factor, the sheriff’s office said.
In Valparaiso, Indiana, one person was killed when “severe crosswinds” blew a tractor and a trailer onto their sides, according to local authorities.
The National Weather Service said a second person was killed north of Millersburg, Indiana, when wind from a thunderstorm blew over an Amish buggy.
The severe weather threat continues Monday, with both tornado and severe thunderstorm watches in effect across multiple states in the South.
Some storms could bring hailstones the size of tennis balls and damaging winds of up to 60 mph.
The storms are expected to reach New Orleans and Atlanta in the morning. The severe weather will hit Jacksonville, Florida; Charleston, South Carolina; and Charlotte, North Carolina, by the afternoon.
The Southeast region is where the strongest of the storms are expected, with damaging wind, large hail and tornadoes possible.
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and New York could see storms by the evening rush hour.
ABC News’ Darren Reynolds and Jessica Gorman contributed to this report.
