Trump Reveals He’s Not Joking About Becoming a Dictator

Donald Trump is “not joking” about running for a third term.

In a Sunday morning phone call with NBC News’s Kristin Welker, the president insisted that he was very serious about potentially circumventing the Constitution in order to lead the country for another four years after his second term ends.

“I know you’re joking about this, but I’ve been talking to a lot of your allies. They say they’re very serious,” Welker said, referring to Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon. “He says he’s really seriously looking at potential plans that would allow you to serve a third term.”

Trump replied that he could seek another term on the basis of his popularity alone, claiming to have the “highest poll numbers of any Republican for the last 100 years,” though that’s blatantly untrue.

Welker then pressed if Trump had been presented with the possibility of staying in office, since he wasn’t ruling it out.

“Well, there are plans. There are—not plans,” Trump said. “There are, there are methods which you could do it, as you know.”

Welker said that one method she had heard discussed among Trump allies would be for Vice President JD Vance to run at the top of the ticket in 2028 with Trump as his number two, before passing the torch to Trump once they’d won.

“Well, that’s one. But there are others too. There are others,” Trump said.

“There are others? Can you tell me another?” Welker pressed.

“No,” Trump replied.

“OK. So, but, but, sir, I’m hearing—you don’t sound like you’re joking. I’ve heard you joke about this a number of times,” Welker said.

“No, no I’m not joking. I’m not joking,” the president said, adding that it’s “far too early” for him to discuss such a move.

But while speaking to reporters on Air Force One over the weekend, Trump again raised the idea that “people” were prompting him to run again.

“I have had more people ask me to have a third term, which in a way is a fourth term because the other election—the 2020 election—was totally rigged,” Trump said. “I just don’t want the credit for the second because Biden was so bad, did such a bad job, and I think that’s one of the reasons that I’m popular.… I think we’ve had the best almost hundred days of any president.”

The seemingly far-fetched and unconstitutional idea would require the consent of most of the country—if Trump attempted to formally run for president again.

As outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution, any such change requires at least two-thirds of the Senate and the House to agree on the modification, with that change then requiring ratification by a minimum of three-quarters of states in the nation.

A second approach to repealing the term-limiting amendment could be via a Constitutional Convention, though two-thirds of states would need to support the motion to have one at all, and any proposed changes to an amendment would still require ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Trump has repeatedly pitched the idea that he could stay in office after 2028.

The MAGA leader would be 82 years old in 2028—the same age that President Joe Biden was when he left office—and that’s unlikely to play well with an American public that is increasingly tired of being led by the elderly.

Still, that hasn’t kept conservatives from trying to keep Trump in power. Republican lawmakers have already started to pave the way for the unconstitutional takeover. In January, Representative Andy Ogles filed a joint resolution to amend the Constitution’s Twenty-Second Amendment so that the executive branch leader could serve “for up to but no more than three terms.”

Donald Trump has successfully bullied yet another big law firm into doing his bidding—but this time, Trump didn’t even have to threaten them.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom agreed to a slate of major concessions to Trump Friday, after the president targeted two other majors firms with executive orders in retaliation for their alleged “obvious partisan representations,” use of DEI hiring practices, and affiliation with lawyers who had investigated Trump in the past.  

Trump announced on Truth Social that the firm has offered $100 million worth of pro bono services and agreed to “not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.” 

Skadden, Arps’s decision to preemptively fold to Trump follows two lawsuits from WilmerHale and Jenner & Block earlier Friday challenging the Trump administration over a pair of retaliatory executive orders threatening to suspend the firms’ security clearances, end their federal contracts, and bar federal employees from engaging with firm members.

Trump hadn’t actually issued an executive order targeting Skadden, Arps, but last week, Elon Musk mentioned it in a post on X, saying the firm needed to “stop” litigation against conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza. 

According to Trump, the firm said it would “not deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups,” including in pro bono work, due to the “personal political views of individual lawyers.” The firm also agreed to fund no fewer than five fellows to projects related to “Assisting Veterans; ensuring fairness in our Justice System; combatting Antisemitism, and other similar types of projects.” 

In a statement shared by Trump, Skadden, Arps executive partner Jeremy London said that his firm had “engaged proactively” with the Trump administration. 

A statement from Skadden, Arps ironically “declared the Firm’s strong commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession.” It seems clear that Trump’s blatant attempts to bully law firms for defending clients and causes he dislikes or employing lawyers he’s deemed as enemies is definitionally the weaponization of the justice system and legal profession. 

An open letter to the legal community, organized by Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings and signed by 21 state attorneys general, urged firms to “refuse to bow to illegal and unconstitutional threats of retribution for having the temerity to represent clients and cases opposing the administration.” 

“Lawyers are not spectators to the Constitution; we are its agents. We cannot allow the President to scare law firms and lawyers into silence,” the letter, which was released Friday, read. 

Last week, Skadden, Arps associate Rachel Cohen submitted a conditional resignation in a scathing letter urging her firm to stand against Trump’s attempts to intimidate major law firms. Her letter came after another firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, caved to the administration and offered $40 million in free legal services, revoked their own DEI practices, and sold one of their own lawyers down the river, simply because he’d once investigated Trump for alleged financial crimes. The Trump administration rescinded its order against the firm, and in light of the huge pro bono commitment from Skadden, Arps, it appears Paul, Weiss made away like bandits. 

Another law firm, Perkins Coie, which was targeted for representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, challenged a similar order earlier this month and was granted a temporary injunction against the Trump administration’s threat to revoke clearances and access. 

A federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting people to third countries.

U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy issued a temporary restraining order Friday requiring the government to provide written notice and an opportunity for detainees to apply for protection before deporting them to a third country.

The ruling is a clear rebuke of the Trump administration’s deal with El Salvador, the recent deportation of Venezuelans to the megaprison there, as well as previous cases where the government has deported immigrants to countries where they had no connection, with no advance notice or ability to raise a legal challenge.

Assuming the administration abides by the ruling, it should at least slow down the mass deportations, which are now beginning to target legal immigrants who have had their visas revoked. The government has also swept up hosts of immigrants and sent them to El Savador for flimsy reasons, claiming that having tattoos reflected gang affiliation.

In one case, a paperwork error led to a Venezuelan national being deported to El Salvador, and in another, a tattoo of a soccer ball was enough to justify a deportation. For now, cases like these will at least be slowed pending a legal appeal, and MAGA officials like Kristi Noem won’t be using El Salvador as a propaganda backdrop again, at least for the near future. Is a more definitive, permanent rebuke of the Trump administration’s legally questionable immigration policy coming?

Vice President JD Vance spent his time in Greenland doubling down on the Trump administration’s threats to take the territory from Denmark.

“Our message to Denmark is very simple,” Vance said at a press conference in Greenland on Friday. “You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland, you have underinvested in the people of Greenland, and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful land mass filled with incredible people. That has to change.

“The president said we have to have Greenland, and I think that we do have to be more serious about the security of Greenland,” Vance continued. “We respect the self-determination of the people of Greenland, but my argument to them is: I think that you’d be a lot better coming under the United States’ security umbrella than you have been under Denmark’s security umbrella. Because what Denmark’s security umbrella has meant is effectively they’ve passed it all off to brave Americans and hoped that we would pick up the tab.”

Vance traveled to Greenland—a Danish-controlled territory—with his wife, Usha, and national security adviser and Signalgate catalyst Mike Waltz, among others. No one in Greenland wanted to meet the group, forcing them to cancel all their events with locals, including a historic tour and a dogsled race.

Vance’s animosity highlights the Trump administration’s policy of “What have you done for me lately?” toward European allies, abandoning them on issues like Ukraine and challenging them on issues like Greenland, on the grounds that they have not committed equally to stopping the perceived threats of Russia and China.

In honor of Women’s History Month, Donald Trump weighed in Friday on an extremely inane question that plagues conservatives. 

During a press conference in the Oval Office, one reporter tried to lob Trump a softball question, asking, “What is a woman, and why is it important that we understand the difference between men and women?”

“Well it’s sort of easy to answer for me because a woman is someone who can have a baby under certain circumstances,” Trump replied. 

“A woman is a person who is much smarter than a man, I’ve always had … a woman is a person that doesn’t give a man even a chance of success,” Trump said, to some laughter.

“A woman is a person that in many cases has been treated very badly,” Trump added, referring to women who sometimes had transgender women on their sports teams. Trump banned trans women from playing women’s sports in an executive order.  

When it comes to treating women “very badly,” Trump is clearly speaking from experience. 

Trump was found liable for sexual abuse, battery, and defamation of author E. Jean Carroll in 2023. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan even went so far as to specifically clarify that the president did indeed “rape” Carroll based on the common definition of the word. In December, a federal appeals court shut down Trump’s request for a new trial. 

At least 27 other women have accused the president of sexual misconduct, according to Axios. Suddenly, his comment about the “certain circumstances” surrounding pregnancy reads as far more sinister than folksy. 

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order establishing the definition of “women” as adult human females and the definition of females as “a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.” 

It is widely acknowledged that women can possess a range of reproductive organs and sex characteristics that don’t fit neatly into a binary, and that a person’s gender is not contingent on their sex. 

Despite Trump’s insistence that he was protecting women and children with his repeated attacks on transgender athletes, the issue he purports to address doesn’t actually exist. His administration is simply targeting the transgender community to score culture-war points, and provide a useful scapegoat from the criticism mounting against it. 

Meanwhile, Trump’s emphasis on transgender women has only made life less safe for all women by empowering violent transphobes intent on infringing on women’s right to privacy.

Elon Musk deleted an X post made early Friday morning offering two $1 million checks to Wisconsin voters attending a “talk” that he is giving in the state on Sunday amid a special election for a seat on the state’s Supreme Court.

The post is a reminder that Musk pushed a similar scheme ahead of the 2024 presidential election in battleground states, where he gave away $1 million each day to registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, from early October until Election Day in November. The plan was met with a legal challenge in Pennsylvania but was ultimately allowed to continue.

This time around, after facing criticism that his post may have violated election laws against paying people to vote, Musk deleted it. In a follow-up post, he sought to backtrack, saying he is offering two $1 million checks to two people attending the talk to be “spokesmen” for a petition against activist judges that he is touting. Only people who have signed the petition are allowed to attend the event.

The petition sparked legal controversy when Musk announced it last week, as signatories in Wisconsin are being paid $100 each to sign it and effectively hand over their personal information to Musk. The tech oligarch and fascism enthusiast has already spent $20 million to back conservative candidate Brad Schimel in the election.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is set to weigh in on several issues with national implications, including the use of voter drop boxes in elections, abortion access, and redrawing congressional maps, and a Republican majority on the court would strengthen Trump and the MAGA agenda. Musk’s cash handouts are another brazen attempt by the billionaire to buy an election, and his deep pockets will probably insulate him from the possibility of any consequences.

President Trump on Thursday pardoned Trevor Milton, the founder of the bankrupt electric truck company Nikola who was sentenced to four years in prison for securities and wire fraud charges in 2023—right before he had to pay millions in restitution.

Milton famously exaggerated the green tech of his hydrogen trucking start-up, defrauding investors.

“Oh my gosh, oh, you won’t believe just what happened,” Milton said in a video he posted on Instagram. “I just got a call from the president of the United States, on my phone, and he signed my full and unconditional pardon of innocence. I am free,” he said. “The prosecutors can no longer hurt me,” he said. “They can’t destroy my family, they can’t rip everything away from me, they can’t ruin my life.”

When Milton was first indicted in 2021, the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office noted that his investors “suffered tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses, including, in certain cases, the loss of their retirement savings or funds that they had borrowed to invest in Nikola.”

This pardon conveniently nullifies the $680 million Milton owed to Nikola shareholders and the $15.2 million to Peter Hicks, one of his wire fraud victims.

Milton emphasized what he saw as “striking similarities” between his case and the four criminal cases against President Donald Trump, who also maintains his victimhood. Milton has been an ardent supporter of Trump and donated $920,000 to the Trump 47 Committee and $750,000 in September to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s MAHA Alliance political action committee after his sentencing.

The country isn’t so confident that Donald Trump’s economic policies are making America great again.

A chart shared Friday by The Washington Post’s economics columnist Heather Long hinted at bad news for the economy, with U.S. households growing increasingly concerned that they’ll be financially worse off a year into the future than they are now. The chart was released by the University of Michigan as part of its consumer sentiment surveys.

“This is one of the scariest charts I’ve seen in awhile,” Long said in an X post. “In the ‘vibe-cession’ under Biden, people gave the economy poor grades. But they were generally optimistic about their personal finances (esp the rich).

“Under Trump 2025, people at all income levels are worried they will be worse off in a year. This is the type of situation that causes people to really pull back on spending. This is what is different than 2023 or 2024.”

That sentiment could convince people to hold onto their dollars as fears of a recession intensify.

A report by the University of Michigan’s survey of consumers in February forecast similarly bad news for the American economy. Last month, inflation expectations jumped an entire percentage point, from 3.3 percent in January to 4.3 percent in February, marking the second consecutive month of “unusually large increases,” according to the university report.

Polled consumers “expressed unease” about several economic factors, including unemployment as well as Trump’s aggressive economic policies.

More than half of the surveyed respondents expected unemployment to rise over the next 12 months—the most people to believe so since 2020—while 40 percent of consumers “spontaneously mentioned” Trump’s tariffs “generally unfavorably,” according to the report.

“While consumers appear relatively secure about their own incomes, with most expecting gains in the year ahead, only 16% expect their income gains to outpace inflation,” the report reads. “This is yet another sign that consumers are worried about the trajectory of prices.”

“Overall, inflation expectations are trending in an unfavorable direction,” the report noted, adding that “expectations matter because consumers have shown that they will act upon them.”

Donald Trump pulled a 180-degree turn Friday when speaking about Canada, after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that the country’s relationship with the U.S. was “over.”

In a post on Truth Social Friday morning, Trump dropped his stupid schtick of calling Canada’s leader its “governor,” as part of his ongoing campaign to have it become the “fifty-first state.” Instead, he issued a surprisingly deferential statement about our northern neighbors.

“I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada’s upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada,” Trump wrote.

On Wednesday, Trump levied a new round of “permanent” 25 percent tariffs on all imported vehicles and autoparts—a move sure to have a large impact in Canada, where many U.S. cars are assembled. Trump had threatened the European Union, warning it against working “with Canada in order to do economic harm” to the U.S. unless it too wanted to be hit with steep tariffs, a blatant attempt to back Canada into a corner.

Carney called the new tariffs on vehicles a “direct attack” on Canadian autoworkers and said that his country would make preparations to “dramatically reduce” its reliance on the U.S. The next day, the two leaders had their first conversation since Carney became prime minister earlier this month after Justin Trudeau stepped down. After being appointed, Carney triggered a parliamentary election to be held on April 28.

Earlier this month, Trump imposed a separate 25 percent tariff on all imports from Canada, with a lower 10 percent tariff on energy and some exemptions for goods covered by the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. Increasingly, it seems that Trump’s trade war with Canada could potentially devastate states along America’s northern border.

The Trump administration’s abrupt street arrests of legal immigrants, who subsequently disappear into government detention, should be a huge scandal met with swift action by Democrats in Congress.

But for some reason, just 34 Democrats in the Senate and the House have signed on to a letter demanding answers about the arrest of Tufts University doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk in Massachusetts and other international students who have had their legal immigration status swiftly revoked without due process and now face deportation.

The letter calls for “answers about this case and about ICE’s policy that has led to the identification and arrest of university students with valid legal status,” and was sent Thursday to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

On Thursday, Rubio boasted that he had revoked the visas of “more than 300 at this point” while failing to mention a specific reason why Ozturk’s visa was revoked. No justification has been provided for University of Alabama doctoral student Alireza Doroudi’s arrest and detention, either, and his whereabouts are unknown.

The 34 Democrats who signed the letter to Trump administration officials are below:

• Representative Yassamin Ansari—Arizona
• Senator Adam Schiff—California
• Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton—District of Columbia (nonvoting delegate)
• Representative Hank Johnson—Georgia
• Representative Delia Ramirez—Illinois
• ​​Representative André Carson—Indiana
• Senator Brian Schatz—Hawaii
• Representative Jill Tokuda—Hawaii
• Senator Chris Van Hollen—Maryland
• Senator Elizabeth Warren—Massachusetts
• Senator Edward Markey—Massachusetts
• Representative Ayanna Pressley—Massachusetts
• Representative Lori Trahan—Massachusetts
• Representative Katherine Clark—Massachusetts
• Representative Stephen Lynch—Massachusetts
• Representative Seth Moulton—Massachusetts
• Representative James McGovern—Massachusetts
• Representative Jake Auchincloss—Massachusetts
• Representative Rashida Tlaib—Michigan
• Representative Ilhan Omar—Minnesota
• Senator Tina Smith—Minnesota
• Senator Andy Kim—New Jersey
• Representative LaMonica McIver—New Jersey
• Representative Bonne Watson Coleman—New Jersey
• Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—New York
• Senator Jeff Merkley—Oregon
• Representative Summer Lee—Pennsylvania
• Representative Greg Casar—Texas
• Representative Lloyd Doggett—Texas
• Senator Bernie Sanders—Vermont (independent who caucuses with Democrats)
• Senator Peter Welch—Vermont
• Senator Tim Kaine—Virginia
• Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr.—Virginia
• Representative Mark Pocan—Wisconsin