- Elon
Musk predicts great 12-year US span. - Trump’s
second term starts the era. - Followed
by two JD Vance terms.
According to Politico, the world’s richest man made the
forecast during a video appearance to a group of approximately 150 DOGE
veterans at the Boring Bodega in Bastrop, Texas, on November 22. He also
restated his aim of establishing an inhabitable colony on Mars.
He apologized to participants for not being able to address
them in person at the pre-Thanksgiving feast, but stated that he believes he is
one of the top assassination targets in the United States, which apparently
left some of his guests “underwhelmed” with the event.
The billionaire’s prediction appears to align with current
Republican thinking about Trump’s most likely successor, putting Vance in poll
position despite the president’s apparent reluctance to anoint him and frequent
hints that he may seek to run for an unprecedented third term.
Jonathan Karl, an ABC News journalist and seasoned Trump
watcher, feels the president and his former White House chief strategist Steve
Bannon are simply laughing at the vice president’s expense.
“I do think that the reason why he keeps bringing up
Trump 2028 – he’s got the hats he shows everybody… It is absolutely trolling,”
Karl said
during a Thanksgiving guest spot on MS Now’s Morning Joe.
“And frankly, Steve Bannon, who was the one that really
started to get this going, is trolling not just Trump’s critics and Democrats;
he’s also trolling JD Vance. Bannon, privately, not a big JD Vance fan at all.”
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has publicly
stated that he believes Vance is the front-runner. The president’s eldest son,
Donald Trump Jr., has just trimmed the vice president’s 20-point lead in the
polls to 18.
The Trump Organization executive remains a popular figure
among MAGA supporters and has managed to stay away from the Washington
“swamp” throughout his father’s two-term reign, leaving him
relatively untarnished by unwanted political affiliations.
Vance has hinted to Fox News commentator Sean Hannity that
he will not consider the subject until after the November 2026 midterm
elections.
“I try to put it out of my head and remind myself the
American people elected me to do a job right now,”
the VP told Hannity,
before conceding that, after the midterms,
“I’m going to sit down with the
president of the United States and talk to him about it.”
Musk has mainly kept out of politics since last year, when
he helped fund Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, founded DOGE to reduce
wasteful federal spending, and then left the administration in explosively
unpleasant fashion in early June.
He and Trump engaged in a furious social media feud after a
disagreement over the president’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” in which
the tech executive accused the commander-in-chief of delaying to release the
Department of Justice’s Jeffrey Epstein files because he was included in them.
Musk has now attempted to strike a more amiable tone,
meeting briefly with Trump at a Charlie Kirk memorial in Arizona in September
and again at a Saudi Investment Forum at the Kennedy Center in Washington last
month.
The president has stated that he believes he will
“always like” Musk, but has generally been less conciliatory,
remarking at the latter event:
“You are so lucky I am with you, Elon. Has he
ever thanked me properly?”
The SpaceX and Tesla CEOs did so on X.
What legal or constitutional risks arise from extended one‑party
control?
Extended one- party control pitfalls weakening separation of
powers, as unified superintendent/ legislative branches could pass laws
bypassing judicial review or minority rights protections. In the US, this might
lead to challenges under Composition I( legislative authority) or the 10th
Correction( federalism), with courts striking down overreaches as seen in
gerrymandering cases like Rucho v. Common Beget( 2019).
Dragged dominance fosters despotism, suppressing dissent and
enabling rights abuses without opposition responsibility. Constitutions like
Pakistan’s or Liberia’s explicitly ban one- party countries to help this; US
pitfalls include First Amendment challenges if party control stifles speech or
voting rights( e.g., Shelby County v. Holder fallout).
Without competition, corruption thrives via blurred state-
party lines and reduced oversight. Judicial review could bring executive
Procedure Act violations or equal protection claims if programs favor patriots,
as in patronage cases like Elrod v. Burns( 1976).
