Will Donald Trump run for a third term? More than half surveyed believe he will
On Sunday, in an interview with NBC News, President Donald Trump conveyed his thoughts about running for a third term.
President Trump told NBC News, 'I like working" and that he was "not joking" when asked he would seek a third presidential term and added that 'it is far too early to think about it.'
However, the U.S. Constitution states, under the 22nd Amendment, no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
According to a YouGov.com poll, 60% of poll takers don't think Trump should be allowed to serve a third term as president, while 12% definitely think he should be allowed to.
The research organization conducted an online poll among 3,565 U.S. adults on March 31.
Here are the findings:
25% says definitely
31% says probably
14% says probably not
14% says definitely not
15% says not sure
28% of respondents think a Democrat will win the 2028 presidential election
28% of respondents think a Republican will win the 2028 presidential election
8% of respondents say there won't be a presidential election in 2028
36% of respondents are not sure
12% says definitely
8% says probably
9% says probably not
60% says definitely not
12% says not sure
Should Donald Trump should be allowed to serve a third presidential term?
28% of Republicans says definitely, 15% say probably while 28% says definitely not and 14% says probably not
3% of Democrats says definitely, 5% says probably while 82% says definitelynot and 5% says probably not
7% of Independents says definitely, 5% say probably while 65% says definitely not and 8% says probably not
This article originally appeared on Asbury Park Press: Can Trump serve a third term? Not according to the US Constitution
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
17 minutes ago
Macron to visit Greenland to show European support for the strategic Arctic island coveted by Trump
NUUK, Greenland -- French President Emmanuel Macron's first trip to Greenland, the strategic Arctic island coveted by U.S. President Donald Trump, is aimed at shoring up Europe's political backing for Denmark and its semiautonomous territory. Macron's visit on Sunday comes just ahead a meeting of the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations next week in Canada that will be attended by both Macron and Trump. The French president's office said the trip to Greenland is a reminder that Paris supports principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders as enshrined in the U.N. charter. Macron is also to meet with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen. Macron mentioned Greenland last week in his opening speech at the U.N. Ocean Conference, saying it isn't 'up for grabs' in remarks that appeared directed largely at Trump. 'The deep seas are not for sale, nor is Greenland up for grabs, nor are the Arctic or the high seas for sale, nor are fishing licenses in developing countries up for grabs, nor are scientific data and the security of coastal populations to be sacrificed,″ Macron said at the summit in Nice, France. Macron in recent months has sought to reinvigorate France's role as the diplomatic and economic heavyweight of the 27-nation European Union. The French president has positioned himself as a leader in Europe amid Trump's threats to pull support from Ukraine as it fights against Russia's invasion. Macron hosted a summit in Paris with other European heads of state to discuss Kyiv, as well as security issues on the continent. Sunday's visit will also be the occasion to discuss how to further enhance relations between the EU and Greenland when it comes to economic development, low-carbon energy transition and critical minerals. The leaders will also have exchanges on efforts to curb global warming, according to Macron's office. A meeting between Macron, Frederiksen and Nielsen will take place on a Danish helicopter carrier, showing France's concerns over security issues in the region, Macron's office said. Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary but refused to answer repeated questions during a hotly combative congressional hearing Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations. Hegseth's comments were the latest controversial remarks made by a member of the Trump administration about the Arctic island. The president himself has said he won't rule out military force to take over Greenland, which he considers vital to American security in the high north. The Wall Street Journal last month reported that several high-ranking officials under the U.S. director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had directed intelligence agency heads to learn more about Greenland's independence movement and sentiment about U.S. resource extraction there. Nielsen in April said that U.S. statements about the island have been disrespectful and that Greenland 'will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone.'
Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
DOGE gets failing grade
1: The DOGE numbers don't add up. Calculating how much DOGE has saved is difficult, but it's not at all hard to see that it didn't deliver what was promised. After Musk revised down his own early projection of DOGE savings from $2 trillion to $1 trillion, the department's website now estimates it has found more than $170 billion in taxpayer savings — Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But even that figure should be taken with a grain of salt, given that past examinations of DOGE's ' Advertisement DOGE moved to correct the error, as well as change the website to make such errors harder to find. But a Advertisement And though it may seem counterintuitive, cutting jobs doesn't actually translate to savings if it results in less productivity — if fewer IRS workers means less tax revenue is collected, for instance. An And even some Republican lawmakers have expressed unease with backing many DOGE-recommended cuts in a $9.4 billion legislative 'rescissions' package to claw back previously approved funding. House lawmakers 2: DOGE has roiled the job market. According to the latest jobs numbers, DOGE cuts contributed to a 50 percent spike in layoffs in May over the same period last year, Exacerbating the damage the firings alone have created is the chaotic way in which they were implemented. Federal agencies like the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Food and Drug Administration, National Weather Service, and the IRS are among those rushing to rehire terminated employees. That's because many of the estimated 135,000 DOGE-axed positions are for critical functions, like approving drugs and forecasting weather disasters. The layoffs' often-disorganized manner has confused dismissed workers and overtaxed remaining ones, many of whom have been asked to work overtime, volunteer to take on additional roles, or be pushed into new positions, Advertisement One former FDA worker That's not to mention the blow to communities in states where the largest percentages of federal workers are located, as well as government contractors that face secondhand profit and job losses due to the cuts. Outside of the greater Washington, D.C. region, which includes Virginia and Maryland, the hardest-hit states when it comes to canceled government contracts based on anti-DEI initiatives alone include Texas, California, North Carolina, Georgia, and Colorado — affecting politically red communities as well as blue. DOGE's harms know no partisanship. 3: The incalculable costs. On Monday a 'This was a breach of law and of trust,' wrote Judge Denise Cote in issuing the temporary injunction. 'Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs.' Whether some or all of DOGE's efforts to gain access to Americans' most sensitive information through agency databases will be declared unlawful is still uncertain. Challenges are still being litigated, and in a lawsuit involving DOGE access to Social Security data, the Advertisement According to Some DOGE staff have been granted temporary 'edit-access' to data, which means the information can be altered or deleted entirely within the federal system. That says nothing of the broader global impact, particularly through the dismantling of agencies like the United States Agency for International Development, which once provided critical life-saving humanitarian aid across the world. DOGE has The government claims that shuttering the agency saved Americans nearly $60 billion, or less than 1 percent of the federal budget. According to Advertisement Musk is already back to playing with his cars and rocket ships as the federal government picks up the pieces from his DOGE tantrum. But the global ripple effect is a reminder that some of the damage can't be undone. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits The high court unanimously said courts can't use a higher standard to block suits for damages for some disability discrimination claims and not others. But they declined to set the standard. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News WASHINGTON – Disability rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court on June 12 made it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools for damages. Not only did all the justices agree that some courts were using too tough a standard to block lawsuits like one brought by a Minnesota teenager with a rare form of epilepsy, but they also rejected her school's argument that the real issue is the standard is too lax for other types of disability discrimination claims. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line,' Shira Wakschlag, an attorney with The Arc of the United States, said in a statement after the decision. But the court didn't settle the larger issue of what the standard should be in all cases. The justices only said there shouldn't be different standards for discrimination claims involving educational instruction. And two of the court's six conservatives – Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh – said the school raised 'serious arguments' that courts are getting that standard wrong. In a concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that he hopes 'lower courts will carefully consider whether the existing standards comport with the Constitution and the underlying statutory text.' Two of the court's three liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – pushed back, saying the school's argument that a person with a disability must prove there was an intent to discriminate is clearly wrong. 'The statutes' text and history, as well as this Court's precedent, foreclose any such purpose requirement,' Sotomayor wrote in a concurring opinion. More: In unanimous decision, Supreme Court makes it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools How the case got to the Supreme Court The issue in the Minnesota case was whether the school failed to accommodate the special needs of Ava Tharpe, whose rare form of epilepsy makes it difficult to attend school in the morning. Federal courts agreed with the family that the school hadn't done enough and needed to provide evening instruction. But the courts said the Tharpes couldn't use the Americans with Disabilities Act to try to get the school to pay for outside teachers and other expenses incurred before they won their case. And they said the Tharpes couldn't use the Rehabilitation Act to seek a court order binding the school to teach Ava after regular school hours. Judges on the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits to go forward involving educational services for children with disabilities. That's a tougher standard than the 'deliberate indifference' rule often used when weighing other types of disability discrimination claims. The school argued that 'deliberate indifference' is too lax. Their lawyers said the plain text of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination. What the Supreme Court decided The Supreme Court said they couldn't consider that argument because they'd only been asked to decide whether the lower courts were correct to apply a 'uniquely stringent' standard for cases like Ava's – not to decide what the standard should be in all cases. 'We will not entertain the (school) District's invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. Thomas said he agreed that it wouldn't have been right for the court to take on the larger issue with its significant ramifications for disability rights. But in his concurring opinion that Kavanaugh joined, Thomas said he'd be willing to do so in an 'appropriate case.' 'Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard under two widely utilized federal statutes is an issue of national importance,' he wrote, 'and the (school) District has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect.'
