United States: The judge overseeing the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams has officially dismissed the charges against him. Furthermore, in a break from the stance taken by the Trump administration’s Justice Department, the judge ruled that these charges cannot be refiled. 

Judge Dale Ho stated that while he harbored concerns about the Justice Department’s reasoning for dropping the case, his legal authority did not allow him to compel federal prosecutors to move forward with the charges. 

In his ruling, Judge Ho criticized the Trump administration’s motives, pointing out that the decision to drop the case coincided with efforts by the White House to strengthen its influence over the Justice Department and federal prosecutors, according to reports by CNN. 

Judge dismisses corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams and, in a split with the DOJ, orders that charges can't be refiledhttps://t.co/vjtVj4ZjSP

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) April 2, 2025

The Justice Department’s handling of the case led to a wave of resignations, including that of the acting US attorney for the Southern District of New York, as well as key officials overseeing public corruption cases. 

In a strongly worded 78-page opinion, Ho firmly rejected the Justice Department’s argument that the prosecution was politically motivated and interfering with the mayor’s ability to implement Trump’s immigration policies. 

“Everything about this situation suggests a trade-off: the dismissal of an indictment in return for concessions on immigration policy,” Ho wrote. He further stated that the Justice Department’s actions were troubling because they implied that public officials could receive special treatment if they aligned with certain political agendas. “Such an idea contradicts the core principle of equal justice under the law.” 

A spokesperson for the Justice Department defended its decision, stating, “This case was a clear example of political manipulation and an unnecessary use of resources. Our priority remains on prosecuting criminals and ensuring the safety of Americans.” 

Eric Adams’ attorney, Alex Spiro, welcomed the ruling, saying, “This case should never have been brought forward in the first place, and today, it is permanently closed. From the beginning, Mayor Adams has insisted on his innocence, and now justice has been served for him and the people of New York,” as per CNN. 

Judge Ho emphasized that dismissing the case without prejudice would have created the impression that Adams’ freedom depended on his willingness to enforce federal immigration policies, potentially making him more accountable to Washington than to his constituents. 

Adams, who faces re-election this year, was indicted in September on charges of bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy, and illegally soliciting campaign donations from foreign nationals in exchange for political favors. He pleaded not guilty. 

Prosecutors alleged that Adams’ misconduct dated back to 2014, during his tenure as Brooklyn Borough President. According to the indictment, he accepted luxury benefits such as hotel upgrades, fine dining, and other perks from a Turkish official. In return, he allegedly pressured a New York City Fire Department official to approve permits for a Turkish consular building that had previously failed inspection. 

In February, the Trump Justice Department recommended dropping the case following a meeting with Adams’ legal team in Washington. Then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove justified the decision by stating, “The ongoing prosecution has unfairly hindered Mayor Adams’ ability to focus fully on addressing illegal immigration and violent crime, which escalated under the previous administration’s policies.” 

This decision led to a series of resignations among Justice Department prosecutors. In her resignation letter, former acting US attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, stated that Adams’ attorneys had repeatedly suggested a quid pro quo arrangement—implying that the mayor would assist with federal enforcement priorities only if the charges were dropped, according to CNN. 

Both Adams and Bove denied any such agreement took place. 

Judge Ho sought external legal insight and consulted conservative attorney Paul Clement for an evaluation of the Justice Department’s request. Clement recommended full dismissal, arguing that leaving the charges open would create the impression that the case could be revived at any time, placing undue pressure on the mayor. 

“A dismissal without prejudice would leave the specter of prosecution hanging over the accused, akin to the Sword of Damocles,” Clement wrote. “A complete dismissal eliminates that concern and upholds the fundamental principle of accountability within the separation of powers.” 

Ultimately, Ho ruled to permanently dismiss the charges against Adams, ensuring they could not be used as political leverage in the future. 

“This decision prevents any scenario where the indictment could be used as a tool to control the mayor or the city,” Ho stated, as per CNN. 

Civil rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton, who previously met with New York Governor Kathy Hochul during deliberations over Adams’ future, remarked that the ruling should eliminate any perception that the mayor was under federal influence. 

“This takes away the idea that he was under the president’s control,” Sharpton told CNN. “Now, whatever he does will be judged on its own merits.” 

Judge Ho clarified that his ruling should not be interpreted as a statement on the validity of the allegations against Adams. He emphasized that public opinion—not his own—would ultimately determine the mayor’s fate. 

“Transparency in decisions like this allows the public to engage with these issues through democratic channels,” Ho concluded. 

United States: The Trump administration has implemented measures to guarantee that an incident akin to the inadvertent inclusion of The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, in a Signal group chat will never recur, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on Monday.   

Why It Matters   

Bipartisan concern over the Signal controversy has intensified, prompting lawmakers from both political spectrums to demand an inquiry. The latest push comes from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, who on Monday formally urged Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to initiate an independent investigation through an official letter, according to AXIOS. 

HPSCI Democrats are calling on the intelligence community, led by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, to conduct an independent investigation into the Signal chat in which participants discussed plans for an impending US military attack in Yemen. pic.twitter.com/RiXzESIX93

— House Intelligence Committee (@HouseIntelDems) March 31, 2025

Official Remarks   

“As the president has unequivocally conveyed, Mike Waltz remains a vital figure within his national security apparatus, and from the administration’s perspective, this matter is now fully resolved,” Leavitt informed reporters on Monday.   

As reported by AXIOS, “Necessary precautions have been instituted to preclude the recurrence of such an event, and we are now progressing forward,” she added, declining to specify the precise nature of the measures enacted. 

President Donald Trump has again floated the idea of a third term, suggesting he could return as vice president in 2028 despite clear constitutional prohibitions. 

United States: President Donald Trump has frequently hinted—sometimes in jest—at the possibility of seeking a third term. However, his recent remarks over the weekend were his most direct and serious yet regarding the matter, a notion that constitutional scholars widely regard as implausible. 

“I’m not joking,” Trump told NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker in a phone interview on Sunday. Despite this, he quickly tempered his statement by adding that it was “far too early to think about it.” 

Trump suggested that there were potential avenues for achieving a third term, including a scenario where Vice President JD Vance would run as the lead candidate on the 2028 Republican ticket, with Trump serving as his running mate. In this situation, Trump could theoretically assume the presidency after the election, according to ABC News. 

Legal and constitutional experts, however, assert that such a maneuver would violate the explicit restrictions set forth in the US Constitution. 

“Trump may not want to dismiss the idea of a third term, but the 22nd Amendment does it for him,” said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University and an authority on constitutional law. 

The Amendment states unequivocally: “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.” Ratified in 1951, this Amendment was introduced following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s historic four-term presidency during World War II, formalizing the two-term tradition established by George Washington. 

Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina, described the prospect of a sitting president defying the 22nd Amendment as unprecedented. 

“The rhetoric may excite his base, but there is no constitutional pathway for a president to serve beyond two elected terms,” Gerhardt emphasized, as per ABC News. 

The Improbability of a Constitutional Amendment 

Legal scholars confirm that the only legitimate way for Trump to seek a third term would be through a constitutional amendment—a near-impossible feat given the stringent requirements. Any amendment would require the approval of two-thirds of both the House and Senate or the endorsement of two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention. After that, ratification would need approval from three-fourths of the states. 

“Trump’s statements are strategically brilliant in terms of commanding attention,” Schultz noted. “His supporters relish the idea, while his detractors react with outrage. Meanwhile, broader economic concerns, such as inflation and market instability, get overshadowed.” 

Examining the Proposed Loopholes 

Trump’s assertion that he could return to the presidency by serving as vice president under JD Vance faces another constitutional roadblock—the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804. 

“The 12th Amendment explicitly states that anyone ineligible to serve as president is also ineligible to serve as vice president,” explained Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “That disqualifies Trump from becoming vice president, which renders his suggested strategy unworkable,” according to ABC News. 

Trump’s ally, Steve Bannon, has also floated alternative interpretations, arguing that the 22nd Amendment does not specify that two presidential terms must be consecutive. At a New York Young Republican Club event in December, Bannon hinted at the possibility of Trump running again in 2028. 

“Since it doesn’t explicitly say consecutive, who’s to say we can’t do it again in ‘28?” Bannon suggested. 

However, Schultz dismissed this argument as legally unsound. 

“The amendment’s drafters intended to establish an absolute cap on the number of years a person could serve as president,” Schultz stated. “The provision allowing up to ten years in office applies only in cases where a vice president assumes the presidency after a predecessor’s mid-term departure. It does not create an exception for non-consecutive third terms.” 

Potential Consequences of Trump Pursues a Third Term 

Trump has already tested constitutional limits regarding presidential power throughout his tenure. His latest remarks sparked an immediate backlash from Democratic leaders, with Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin denouncing them on X (formerly Twitter): “This is what dictators do.” 

Historically, Republicans have often dismissed Trump’s musings about a third term as political theater intended to energize his supporters and antagonize opponents. However, within days of his second inauguration, Republican Congressman Andy Ogles introduced a resolution proposing the removal of presidential term limits to facilitate Trump’s continued leadership. 

Should Trump formally attempt to run in 2028, election officials and, ultimately, the courts would be responsible for determining his eligibility. A similar legal battle occurred during the 2024 election cycle when multiple states challenged his candidacy under the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 due to his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. The case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Trump’s favor, as per ABC News. 

Barry Burden warns that a 2028 campaign could create another constitutional crisis. 

“The Constitution bars Trump from serving a third term but does not explicitly prevent him from running,” Burden explained. “If Republicans were to nominate him, they would effectively be challenging the Constitution’s authority, hoping to find a way around it if he won.” 

James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, insists that Trump would ultimately lose any legal attempt to reclaim the presidency beyond two terms. 

“Much of the Constitution is written in broad language open to interpretation. But the 22nd Amendment is not,” Sample said. “There is no ambiguity. A person cannot be elected president more than twice.” 

Despite the legal obstacles, Sample believes Trump’s rhetoric alone serves a strategic purpose. 

“If you can turn an otherwise clear-cut legal issue into a debate, you undermine the Constitution itself,” he concluded. “Trump will not serve a third term, but merely by making it a topic of discussion, he chips away at constitutional norms and expands executive power in the long run.”