As you likely know, Donald Trump has been trolling the libs for many years now by suggesting he might seek an unconstitutional third term.

You’ve probably also gathered that he’s made more aggressive insinuations in recent days, as part of a broader effort to menace his domestic and foreign enemies.

He wants us to think he might run as JD Vance’s running mate in 2028, so that Vance can win the presidency within supposedly-constitutional bounds, then step aside. He wants us to think he’s considering other loopholes that might allow him to circumvent the 22nd amendment, which prohibits him from being elected to a third term.

I have been reluctant to write about this at length. For now, Trump’s mostly just testing how easily he can distract mainstream journalists, and how unthinkingly mainstream journalists will enable his effort to treat settled matters as open questions. He wants people who dislike him to feel upset, and participating in this pseudodebate advances that petty goal. Even if he eventually tries, it’s a problem for later.

But as long as the issue is alive in the discourse now, and as Trump has at least some liberals reasonably spooked, I wanted to offer a few thoughts. Because I think the right way to respond to this provocation is pretty easy to generalize.

Share Off Message

MOCK TURKEY TO ME

First, by no means is the correct approach to freak out and act scared, let alone utter the dread incantation “this is not normal.”

No. Stop. Don’t.

In this, as in many realms where Trump straddles the line between trolling and threat, I’d say the right approach combines mockery, with firmness as to what is actually legal, and pre-planning in the event that Trump seeks—and may even be granted—an exemption from the constitutional order by the corrupted Supreme Court.

What that looks like in practice will vary from issue to issue, but for purposes of his third-term threat, the stakes are unusually low.

Josh Marshall argues, “there’s only one proper response to all these comments: ‘No, you’re not.’” In other words: I’m considering it. vs. No you’re not. It’s my right vs. No it’s not. Etc.

And, yeah, that’s basically fine. So long as the response isn’t cowering or credulous, we’re in good shape.

But at step one, I prefer mockery. Oh, you’re going to run again? At 82 and confused? Alright, well, good luck old man. Also, how’s Greenland going? How’s the Canada annexation coming along? Also, also: Barack Obama is 15 years younger than you.

Mockery underscores his failure to elicit fear, which is his first objective. It also turns the discussion around in a way that makes him seem weak rather than dominant. You’re a ridiculous person with delusions of grandeur and probably no small amount of fear that the whole edifice will crumble if you’re ever permanently ousted from power.

But Josh is definitely right about the importance of firmness on the factual question. There is no ambiguity. Trump can not be president past noon on January 20, 2029. Anyone who pretends otherwise, even for the purposes of egging him on during a news broadcast, is playing patsy, and corroding the rule of law.

That’s how Democrats should ultimately respond to reporters who ask them for comment, and how liberals should think about this discourse, so they don’t get tempted by defeatism. Trump is a clown and humoring him is beneath any truth seeker. Whether he’s vital or on his last legs, Dems will sue in every state to keep him off every ballot, just as Republicans would have if Obama had sought a third term, and just as they would if a 32 year old or an immigrant with a big popular following registered with the FEC to run for president.

Give a gift subscription

22 AND HE

Of course, the defeatist temptation comes from some place real. Republican elected officials and corrupt Republican judges made everything we’re living through today possible. As an oath-breaking insurrectionist, Trump was disqualified already from federal office, and the Supreme Court exempted him unanimously. Why wouldn’t at least five Republican justices keep the party going another four years?

If that’s what happens, I don’t suspect it’ll be by looking the other way as Trump pretends to be Vance’s running mate (though, sure, whatever, that’d be hilarious to watch). If I were helping Democrats plan ahead, I’d tell them to look at the constitutional language governing qualification and disqualification, and at what the justices said about it when they considered whether to allow Colorado to kick Trump off the 2024 ballot. ...