I don’t really like spending time on other countries’ politics. Domestic politics in Britain is interesting enough. Next week we have local elections and a by-election, and these will be highly significant – but I won’t comment until the results (all of them) are in, as I have no special knowledge or insight to impart beforehand. But current American politics is compelling and I had planned to do a third post following President Donald Trump’s Liberation Day tariff announcement, and so I am following that through, having returned from a lovely Easter break in Provence.
Immediately following Liberation Day, I sensed rout in the Trump administration, given the plan’s obvious insanity, and Mr Trump’s initial doubling-down. That made me think that he could be ousted before his term was up. The reversals he has made since have not shown the Trump regime in a good light, but they have defused the political danger that I sensed then. A policy rout may be occurring, but not a political one – Trump remains safe. Still it did get me thinking about what it would take to end his term early. There seem to be three ways: death in office; 25th Amendment; or impeachment. We can rule out resignation, except inasmuch as it might arise from the the drivers for 25th Amendment or impeachment. Being President is the ultimate self-affirmation for Mr Trump, and the status it confers goes to the core of his being. If seeing life beyond the presidency was beyond Joe Biden in 2024, it will be beyond Mr Trump ever. And he’s always been tenacious.
So death first. He is nearly 79 and so more susceptible to death from natural causes than most of the human race. But he doesn’t drink, smoke or over-work. Regular golf gives him moderate exercise. He’s not a healthy eater, and his obsession with media coverage isn’t especially healthy, but he doesn’t look unhealthy. He seems to be enjoying himself. So there’s a risk, but not an especially big one. Assassination is a possibility, but his security is very tight. And, Iran and some Arab nations excepted, most of the world’s unpleasant regimes probably want him in place for as long as possible. This looks even less of a risk. It is possible that the chaos of his style of government could compromise the security side of his administration – but my guess is that this is the one aspect that won’t be badly affected. So let’s put all that to one side.
What about the 25th Amendment, which provides for the Vice President to take over, temporarily or permanently, in the event of incapacity? On the assumption that Mr Trump would never admit incapacity himself, this would have to arise from a coup, by getting enough of the right people to certify him as incapable. That coup would in practice have to be led by the Vice President, currently JD Vance (and there is little risk of his premature departure). He is ruthless and ambitious enough, but he would need to mobilise the Trump base to ensure his re-election. For that to happen Mr Trump’s incapacity would have to be so obvious that even most of that base could be persuaded by it. That would require a significant change to his physical or mental health. See above.
Which leaves impeachment. For this you need a cause – “treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanours”. That’s the easy bit; Mr Trump’s disregard of legal niceties and eye for personal enrichment will offer lots of opportunities. Presidential immunity, extended by the Supreme Court last year, doesn’t apply; the presence of the impeachment process was one reason that immunity exists. The bar isn’t high: remember that Bill Clinton’s affair with an intern was enough. The Supreme Court has regarded impeachment as primarily a political process, so it wouldn’t get too involved in this. If it’s good enough for Congress, it’s good enough for them. A simple majority in House of Representatives is enough to set things off (which happened twice in Mr Trump’s first term), but it requires two-thirds of the Senate to remove him, following a trial. That has never happened.
The Republican majority in the lower house is thin, and could disappear even before the mid-term elections in 2026, after which a Democrat majority is expected. But the upper house threshold looks unattainable in pure party political terms, although I have read a couple of comments suggesting that a Republican rout in 2026 could get that far. But the Senate elects by thirds, so that is surely out of reach. And surely if it looked like a possibility, the Republicans would be breaking ranks. In practice successful impeachment would require a substantial Republican rebellion, and we wouldn’t have to wait for the mid-terms. What could cause that?
Any idea that such a rebellion could occur on matters of ethics or principle can be discarded; if it couldn’t happen after the Insurrection of January 2021, it never will. A sense of impending political doom amongst Republican lawmakers would be needed to overcome their fear of being ousted by Mr Trump’s base. Mr Trump’s election was based, to over-simplify, on a fanatical core vote (“the base”), and a substantial number of floating voters who were persuaded that since the economy went relatively well in Mr Trump’s first term, it would do so again in his second. Many others were persuaded by frustration with the Biden presidency and false reassurances from the Trump campaign. There were even significant numbers of Arabs campaigning for Trump because of Biden’s support for Israel. I wonder how they are feeling now. These floating voters are being systematically driven off; doubtless this includes many donors to the Trump cause too. The question is how much this haemorrhage will scare Republican congressmen.
I have no special insight on that I’m afraid. My sense is that things have to get really bad before the ice starts to break. The closest thing I can think of is the early years of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 to 1982. She imposed a new, harsh economic regime, and unemployment shot up, while inflation took its time to reduce; liberal elite types were up in arms as she bulldozed polite norms. Her popularity sank drastically, but the party remained loyal; she won a landslide in 1983, though largely because the opposition was divided. America’s political system is very different from the British one then – but in ways that made Mrs Thatcher less secure. She had a loyal base and that was enough. That’s my guess for this time too. It will take more than a recession for any serious breaking of Republican ranks.
But what about the base? If cracks form there things could start to move very quickly. At present it looks as solid as ever. They seem to care more about inflicting pain on the hated liberal elites than about bringing success to America – and on that score Mr Trump is doing well, exceeding expectations even. What will it take to shake them? I don’t know – though we should remember that this base is not as monolithic as our mental picture usually makes them. Elements of it could start to flake off before the hard core does. Still, I think it will take a fair bit more time before any doubt might creep in – another year at least.
One reason for thinking that Mr Trump can head off serious danger, even as the economy does badly, and other bits of the state start to fail, is that his own political instincts are so strong. He has an especially strong bond with his base. He knows what to say so that they are angry at anybody else but him. He is also able to convey the idea that any criticism of him is also a criticism of them. And he makes policy adjustments when things get too hot. These instincts were on display in the weeks after Liberation Day. He is no ideologue – unlike Mrs Thatcher.
So when assessing whether Mr Trump may be at risk, don’t look at economic performance, or popularity ratings – look for signs that core loyalists are dropping out or breaking ranks. By this I don’t mean people inside or close to the administration itself – as Mr Trump’s management method is bound to cause a steady turnover of personnel here. I mean people who aren’t directly trying to influence policy or personnel – as close as you can get to the actual core voters. Evidence of this might show up in disaffection in the House of Representatives – these are likely to the first victims of a Trump backlash.
A couple of other things are worth thinking about. If Mr Trump is removed then he is replaced by the Vice President. Mr Vance is more coherent and rational than Mr Trump – but he has some extreme views. He is very much an isolationist in terms of world politics, and he has even less respect for the rule of law. Replacing Mr Trump with him is not an inviting prospect, and that could cause opponents to hesitate. It is possible that he could be impeached as well, but that is much harder to do in coordination.
A further point is that the Trump administration might start to corrupt the electoral system to secure his Republican acolytes. One reason that I thought that Liberation Day might put him in danger is that he seemed to be moving too early – before any institutional consolidation of his power had taken place. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I am less worried about this now. Mr Trump has too much going on, and he’s not motivated to make life easier for his supporters – he’s the only person that matters to him. And the American system may be easy to corrupt at the edges (with strategic political appointees) but not so much at scale. The anti-Republican backlash is liable to be too big to stall with such tactics. Also he won’t be facing the electors again. His talk of a third term is more of a ploy to stop talk of succession, which would take the attention away from him and turn him into a lame duck, than it is a serious bid.
For now, Mr Trump has little to fear. But if there is danger it would be as Ernest Hemingway described bankruptcy: “gradually and then suddenly.”
First published on 24 April 2025 on Substack