Washington Wednesday: Third term and tariff pain

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: It’s Wednesday the 9th of April.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Lindsay Mast.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

Time now for Washington Wednesday. In a moment, we’ll tell you about a hearing on the new tariff plan and the trade war. But first, could Trump 2.0 lead to Trump 3.0?

MAST: The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution says “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” But since the president has openly mused about a third term some in the Republican Party are now considering ways to make it possible.

WORLD’s Josh Schumacher has the story.

JOSH SCHUMACHER: Congressman Andy Ogles of Tennessee proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution back in January. He spoke about the amendment and Donald Trump’s presidency with ForbesTV.

OGLES: What this would allow, if it were to be amended, then the American people would get to decide if he deserved a third term.

Many Republicans initially dismissed the idea, and Trump also seemed ambivalent when reporters asked him about it aboard Air Force One.

TRUMP: I don't want to talk about a third term now, because no matter how you look at it, we've got a long time to go… But despite that, so many people are saying, 'you've gotta run again'. They love the job we're doing.

But then last month, Trump changed his tune: he told NBC News he was seriously considering a third term, adding that he was “not joking.”

That encouraged grassroots organizers working to cultivate support for Congressman Ogles’ resolution.

TREJO: The founding fathers never put executive term limits into the Constitution. You know that came, you know, just during the 20th century…

Shane Trejo is the campaign leader for the Third Term Project. He says allowing a president to serve for three terms would not violate the founding fathers’ original intent for the office of president.

TREJO: So I don't see how it would be against the Founding Fathers intent to allow someone—I mean, allow the people to decide.

The challenge is that people since the Founders have decided to put limits on the executive office with the 22nd amendment.

MARK CALEB SMITH: That's the one that was passed after Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, primarily in response to Roosevelt being elected to four terms.

Mark Caleb Smith teaches American politics at Cedarville University. He says the amendment, ratified in 1951, closes the door to Trump running for a third term.

Some supporters of a third Trump term suggest another route: Trump could run as Vice President J.D. Vance’s running mate in the next election and then have Vance step aside after the pair gets into office.

But Smith says an amendment ratified in 1804 closes that loophole.

SMITH: The problem there is the 12th Amendment says pretty clearly that in order to be considered Vice President, you have to be eligible to the office of the presidency. In that language, no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.

But others say the maneuver does have potential, and the current text of the Constitution might allow Trump to serve a third term. Brad Jacob teaches Constitutional Law at Regent University’s Law School.

JACOB: The 12th Amendment says you may not be vice president if you're not eligible to serve as president. And the 22nd Amendment doesn't say you're not eligible to serve. It says you're not eligible to be elected. And so because those amendments don't track the same language, I think that's a viable scenario.

As for amending the constitution entirely to eliminate any confusion about Trump’s ability to take on a third term. Jacob says that would never happen.

JACOB: In today's political climate there is no chance of any constitutional amendment being enacted. Period. Much less one as controversial as this would be.

There are several ways to amend the Constitution, but they all require three-fourths of the states to approve the amendment and would likely require two-thirds of both Congressional chambers to approve it as well.

So if the path to a third term is legally problematic, why talk about it now? Smith from Cedarville University says the conversation challenges the perception of Trump as a lame-duck president.

SMITH: I think it’s fair to say that the Trump administration so far has been controversial. Pretty extensive amount of criticism, pushback. Maybe this is really an effort to distract from that kind of criticism. So it could be this is really just as much as a public relations decision as a policy decision.

A recent YouGov poll says more than half of American adults think Trump will probably try to obtain a third term one way or another. Less than one-third of respondents think he’ll most likely be done at the end of this term.

Shane Trejo says whether Trump serves a third term should be up to the people.

TREJO: We're not calling for anything like imposing President Trump, you know, making him the president, you know, without the consent of the people, he would be on the ballot, and the people could choose whether or not that they wanted him.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Josh Schumacher.

LINDSAY MAST: Turning now to tariffs: On Tuesday, members of the Senate Finance committee grilled the Trump Administration’s Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer. The hearing comes after days of market turmoil that have left many constituents concerned for their businesses and retirement accounts. Lawmakers wanted answers about how far the President will go with tariffs and how much pain the American economy might endure.

NICK EICHER: Washington Bureau reporter Carolina Lumetta was in the room and has the story.

CAROLINA LUMETTA: The U.S. buys substantially more from other countries than it sells. And Trade Representative Jamieson Greer says that last year’s $1.2 trillion trade deficit is cause for alarm.

GREER: President Trump imposed tariffs to address this emergency. And these measures are aimed squarely at achieving reciprocity and reducing our massive trade deficit to reshore production in the United States.

Since President Trump’s tariff announcement last week, the stock markets have tumbled and other countries have imposed retaliatory tariffs. While economists estimate that the tariffs will add hundreds of dollars in extra costs per American household, Greer said he doesn’t trust their math.

GREER: This adjustment may be challenging at times, and in a moment of drastic overdue change, I'm confident, I'm certain that the American people can rise to the challenges as they've done before.

Lawmakers aren’t so sure. Constituents working in industries like farming, meat production, and tourism have been hounding their representatives to get clarity. Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma represents garment manufacturers who rely on overseas factories for production. They’ve had less than a week to figure out how to change their business models.

LANKFORD: they're asking me about exclusions and exceptions and how this is going to be handled to say, “We can't buy it in America, this is the only place that's actually manufacturing it.” I know long-term, the hope is to be able to have it more diversified, but in the short term, they don't have another option. How do you plan to handle that?

GREER: Senator, the president has been clear with me and with others that he does not intend to have exclusions and exemptions, especially given the nature of the action. If you have Swiss cheese in the action, it can undermine the overall point, which is to get rid of the deficit, achieve reciprocity.

Senators also complained about the global approach to tariffs. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana said he does want the administration to eliminate trade barriers. But he suggested a more targeted approach.

CASSIDY: I'll also hear from my producers that the mean tariff being selected to apply to a country may not account that for rice, for example, the tariff is much higher for that particular product and that it is not adequate to address that which is taking place. Any thoughts on that and how can we have something more particular for products which are really over-tariffed?

Greer replied that other countries are welcome to come up with alternative plans for the president’s consideration but the administration will not be making exceptions for particular products.

Democratic senators from Rhode Island, Nevada, and Colorado all shared concerns from constituents about how high tariffs could strangle the supply chain, shutter small businesses, and hurt local economies. Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican, agreed that while tariffs are aimed at corporations and governments overseas, businesses here at home will suffer in the short term.

RON JOHNSON: I don't often agree with the members on the other side of the aisle. But in many cases here today, particularly when they're expressing concern about small businesses in their states, I hope you and the President are very sensitive about companies potentially going bankrupt by these actions. Again, we want fair trade, but I hope you recognize, you know, tariffs are a double-edged sword. I would argue it's a somewhat blunt instrument.

Greer says 50 countries have started talks with the administration on how to lower the trade deficit, though President Trump has said tariffs aren’t going away. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley said he doesn’t want to see the tariffs stick around forever.

GRASSLEY: Do you plan to turn these tariffs into trade deals, to reduce tariffs, and non-tariff barriers. I support that. On the other hand, if the purpose is to stall on negotiations in order to keep tariffs high for the sole purpose of feeding the U.S. Treasury, I oppose that. So, is this administration for trade reciprocity or for treasury replenishment?

GREER: I think the answer, Senator, is it's going to be country by country.

Democratic senators questioned Greer on the viability of that approach. Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto of Nevada asked about a previous trade agreement Greer helped negotiate during Trump’s first term between the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

CORTEZ-MASTO: How long did it take to negotiate that agreement, the USMCA, that you were part of?

GREER: We did it at breakneck speed. We did it in about two years.

CORTEZ-MASTO: Two years, and now you're telling us you have nearly 50 countries coming to you, approaching you to enter in a negotiation. And you think that you can do that overnight? - India for-- Man, you're pretty superhuman here, if that's the case. So let's be realistic.

Throughout the hearing, Greer pushed back on arguments for a more incremental approach, arguing that for Trump 2.0, the trade deficit is of highest concern.

GREER: The trade deficit has been decades in the making, and it’s not going to be fixed overnight.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Carolina Lumetta in Washington.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.