Barron Trump is all grown up: A look at the first son’s transformation from 2017 to 2025

President Trump's youngest son Barron, 18, stepped into the spotlight at his father's inauguration on Monday.  

Standing at a towering 6'9", many attendees and viewers remarked about how mature the younger Trump has become since his father first took office back in January 2017.

At 10 years old, Barron Trump was often the victim of cruel jokes and rumors from his father's critics. His mother, Melania Trump, attempted to shield him from unwanted scrutiny, though sometimes to no avail.

On Monday, the first son commanded respect from onlookers as he stood by his father's side during the inaugural ceremonies. Here's a look at how Barron Trump has grown up since 2017.

DOGE CAUCUS PLANS FOR BIGGEST IMPACT, EYEING KEY TOOLS TO EXPEDITE CUTTING WASTE

At 10 years old, Barron Trump became the first son to reside in the White House since John F. Kennedy, Jr. in 1961.

Barron, who turned 11 in March of 2017, also lived at Trump Tower in New York at the same time, attending Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School on the Upper West Side.

Beginning in 2016, rumors swirled about Barron Trump possibly having autism, which comedian Rosie O'Donnell amplified. In 2024, Melania Trump said that the rumors deeply impacted her son, who was bullied at school.

"I was appalled by such cruelty," Melania Trump wrote in her memoir. "It was clear to me that she was not interested in raising awareness about autism. I felt that she was attacking my son because she didn’t like my husband."

"There is nothing shameful about autism (though O’Donnell’s tweet implied that there was), but Barron is not autistic," she added. "Barron’s experience of being bullied both online and in real life following the incident is a clear indication of the irreparable damage caused."

Barron turned 12 years old in March 2018 and continued to be a common target for Trump's enemies.

Actor Peter Fonda called for officials to "rip Barron Trump from his mother's arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles." He later apologized for the remarks.

"I tweeted something highly inappropriate and vulgar about the president and his family in response to the devastating images I was seeing on television," Fonda said in the statement shortly after. "Like many Americans, I am very impassioned and distraught over the situation with children separated from their families at the border, but I went way too far."

Barron was 13 years old when his family permanently relocated to Mar-a-Lago in 2019. That year, Trump said he would have a "hard time" allowing his son to play football.

"I just don't like the reports that I see coming out having to do with football — I mean, it's a dangerous sport and I think it's really tough," Trump said at the time. "I thought the equipment would get better, and it has. The helmets have gotten far better, but it hasn't solved the problem."

During a 2019 House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan remarked that then-President Trump could "name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron."

Melania Trump was upset that her young son was mentioned at the hearing.

"A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics," the first lady tweeted at the time. "Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it."

As Trump was fighting for his re-election bid in 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic rocked the United States, Barron Trump continued to attend school and stayed out of the public spotlight. In 2020, "Jeopardy" host Ken Jennings apologized for a joke he told about Barron in 2017. 

"Barron saw a very long necktie and a heap of expired deli meat in a dumpster," Jennings tweeted at the time. "He thought it was his dad & his little heart is breaking."

"Hey, I just wanted to own up to the fact that over the years on Twitter, I've definitely tweeted some unartful [sic] and insensitive things," Jennings wrote in 2020. "Sometimes they worked as jokes in my head and I was dismayed to see how they read on screen."

OHIO GOV DEWINE PICKS LT GOV TO FILL VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT JD VANCE'S VACANT SEAT

Barron Trump was 14 years old when his father left office in January. He lived with his mother at Mar-a-Lago full-time and stayed out of the spotlight.

In July 2021, he was seen leaving Trump Tower with Melania Trump.

Barron Trump was 16 when FBI agents raided his father's Florida estate. He kept a low profile during this year, but he was seen in public with both of his parents at the funeral of Ivana Trump, Trump's first wife, in July 2022.

In November 2022, his father announced his bid for the presidency.

As President Trump's campaign kicked up again in 2023, Barron was still absent from the public spotlight. In August of that year, his father's mugshot was released.

Barron Trump matriculated at New York University (NYU) in the fall of 2024. He graduated from Oxbridge Academy in West Palm Beach in May, and was seen attending classes at NYU'S Stern School of Business.

In November, he also voted for the first time, casting a ballot for his father in Florida.

Barron looked sharp as he attended his father's inauguration on Jan. 20. Later during the day, he waved to the crowd after his father mentioned his role in the 2024 campaign.

"I have a very tall son named Barron. Has anyone ever heard of him?" Trump said to cheers, as the first son waved at attendees.

"He knew the youth vote. You know, we won the youth vote by 36 points… He said, ‘Dad, you got to go out, do Joe Rogan, do all these guys,’" Trump recalled. "We did, we did. And Joe Rogan was great."

The 18-year-old also wowed attendees when he shook hands with President Biden and then-Vice President Kamala Harris, with some social media users speculating that he may pursue a political career in the future.

"Barron Trump just shook hands with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris," one X user wrote. "This kid will be our President one day. Bet on it."

"Barron Trump is a natural," another said of Barron. "Totally owned the moment."

Fox News Digital's Brooke Curto and Kyle Schmidbauer contributed to this report.

Trump gets inaugurated Monday; here’s how the Supreme Court swears in new presidents

Top members of the three branches of government will come together in a rare display of national unity and tradition when the presidential and vice-presidential oaths of office are delivered at Monday's inauguration. A swear-in rookie, and perhaps funny hats, will be indispensable parts of the ceremonies.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh will continue a nearly 240-year-old tradition of administering the oaths to President-elect Trump and his No. 2, JD Vance. The other seven members of the high court are expected to attend the event in the Capitol Rotunda, all in their judicial robes. 

Whatever political differences exist, they surely will not be on display at this most cordial and dignified of ceremonies. After all, the first person the president thanks will likely be the chief justice. But an undercurrent of tension remains.

During his first run for high office in 2016, candidate Trump took the unusual step of attacking a member of the federal judiciary, labeling Roberts "an absolute disaster" among other personal insults. This will be the "Chief's" fifth presidential swearing-in, his second with Trump.

HOW TO WATCH, STREAM TRUMP'S 2025 INAUGURATION ON JANUARY 20TH

The choice of Kavanaugh is no surprise: incoming second lady Usha Vance clerked for Kavanaugh when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

She then went on to a prestigious law clerkship at the Supreme Court with Roberts. Sources say Kavanaugh gave an especially strong job recommendation for Usha Vance to his now bench colleague.

In an August interview with "Fox and Friends," Usha Vance said Kavanaugh was "such a good boss" and "decent person" who "hired people from all over the political spectrum."

"My experience working for him was overwhelmingly positive," she added.

Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas are among recent justices who have performed similar vice-presidential swear-in honors.

While chief justices have normally sworn in the president, a broader mix of officials have handled the vice-presidential duties. Then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert swore in Vice President Dick Cheney in 2005.

Thomas did the honors when Mike Pence was sworn in 2017 as vice president for Trump's first term.

TRUMP SWEARING-IN TO MOVE INDOORS DUE TO COLD WEATHER, SOURCE TELLS FOX NEWS

Article VI of the Constitution requires executive officers, including the president, as well as members of Congress and federal judges, to "be bound by oath or affirmation," but nothing mandates that a Supreme Court justice administer it. When it comes to the presidential inauguration, they just have, most of the time.

There was no Supreme Court yet formed when George Washington took the first oath of office in 1789, so New York's highest ranking judge did the honors at Federal Hall on Wall Street. Four years later, Associate Justice William Cushing swore in Washington for a second term, beginning the Supreme Court tradition.

Early swear-ins were usually conducted in the House or Senate chamber. The 1817 inaugural was held outdoors for the first time when James Monroe took the oath in front of the Old Brick Capitol, where the legislature met temporarily after the original Capitol was burned by invading British troops in the War of 1812. The Monroe swear-in site is now occupied by the Supreme Court, which opened its building in 1935.

The man who handled the duties more than 200 years ago was John Marshall, widely acknowledged as the most influential chief justice in U.S. history. He participated in a record nine swear-ins, from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson. For Roberts, this will be his fifth.

The Constitution lays out the exact language to be used in the 34-word oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Many judges have tacked on four little words, "so help me God." It is not legally or constitutionally required, unlike other federal oaths that invoke the words as standard procedure. Historians have been at odds over whether President Washington established precedent by adding the phrase on his own during his first acceptance, but contemporary accounts mention no such ad-libbing.

Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said it spontaneously in 1861, and other presidents over the years have followed suit. A Bible is traditionally used, with the president placing one hand on it while raising the other during the oath of office.

The 16th president and Chief Justice Roger Taney shared a mutual animosity. When the oath was administered just days before the Civil War erupted, many attending the ceremony noticed the frosty demeanor both men showed each other, befitting the late winter chill. Several historians have said Lincoln later that year secretly issued an arrest warrant for Taney, who tried to block the president's suspension of habeas corpus during the conflict. The warrant was never served.

President Barack Obama used Lincoln's Bible for his two swear-ins.

Trump is expected to again use the Lincoln Bible and a family Bible.

TRUMP, VANCE OFFICIAL PORTRAITS RELEASED AHEAD OF INAUGURATION

Roberts, administering his first presidential oath in 2009, strayed slightly from the text, which prompted its re-administration for protective purposes the following day, in a private White House ceremony.

Those Jan. 20 ceremonies at the Capitol also ran long, so that the presidential oath was not completed until five minutes past noon. Nonetheless, Obama under the 20th Amendment had officially assumed the presidency at noon.

At the time, a California atheist, Michael Newdow, objected and went to federal court to prevent Roberts from prompting Obama to repeat the "so help me God" phrase. Newdow, along with several non-religious groups, argued the words violated the constitutional ban on government "endorsement" of religion.

The high court ultimately rejected the lawsuit, and no such legal challenges are expected this time.

Four years later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor swore in Biden for a second term as vice president in 2013. She was asked by Vice President Harris to do the honors again, with the first female vice president citing the fact both women once served as government prosecutors.

Pence used the family Bible of the late President Ronald Reagan, telling Fox News at the time, "It's just very humbling for me. We are approaching it with prayer, but with deep, deep gratitude to the president-elect for his confidence and deep gratitude to the American people." 

Trump also broke tradition by not attending the swear-in of his successor four years ago.

Lyndon Johnson's swear-in from 1965 marked a change from tradition. His wife Claudia – known as Lady Bird – held the Bible, a job previously managed by the high court's clerk. Spouses have since had the honor, and Melania Trump and Usha Vance are expected to continue that role.   

Hopefully, nerves won't result in a repeat of the 1941 goof, when then-clerk Elmore Cropley dropped the Bible just after Franklin Roosevelt took the oath to begin his third presidential term.

GET TO KNOW DONALD TRUMP'S CABINET: WHO HAS THE PRESIDENT-ELECT PICKED SO FAR?

It usually is not hard at the inauguration to spot the justices, who are normally shielded from broad public view in the camera-barred court. They are announced as a group, arrive wearing their black robes – usually covering bulky winter coats – and are given prominent seats on the specially built platform on the West Front of the Capitol.

Before Marshall took over the court in 1801, the justices wore red robes with fur trim and white wigs in all public settings. His practice of a simple black silk robe without wig remains the American judicial standard.

And if there is any doubt about their identities, look for some unusual-looking headgear several justices may be sporting. The large black "skullcaps" have no brims and can be made of wool, silk or even nylon. Perhaps to keep them from looking like a Jewish yarmulke, the hats are usually pleated upward, which one federal judge privately told Fox News made him look like he was wearing a dirty napkin.

Given the inauguration ceremony is indoors this year because of expected frigid weather, the skullcaps may be an afterthought.

They have been around in British courts since the 16th century, and at least a century in the United States. Only judges wear them, and only at formal ceremonies, not in court.

Official records are hazy on the hats, but Chief Justice Edward White proudly wore one in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson became president. The "age of the skullcap" peaked in 1961 when seven of the nine justices wore them at the bitterly cold inauguration of President John F. Kennedy.

The last time around, only now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer was brave enough to sport one, though Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and the late Antonin Scalia had worn them previously. None of the six current or former women justices ever used them.

Scalia told an audience a few years ago why he favored skullcaps. "If you've ever seen an inauguration, you will see me wearing the old hats judges used to wear. It's a ridiculous-looking hat, but it's a tradition. Yes, it's silly looking."

Scalia's headgear was a replica of one worn by St. Thomas More, a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist also sported them, not surprising, given his role as an unofficial historian of court procedure and tradition.

He made one of the most dramatic appearances in inaugural history while suffering from thyroid cancer in 2005. There was speculation he would be too ill to attend, but he assured officials he would be there, and he kept his word.

After three months away from the public eye while he received chemotherapy, the ailing 81-year-old chief was introduced to the audience just before President George W. Bush was to take the oath. Using a cane, Rehnquist walked slowly to the podium without assistance – wearing a dark baseball cap – and did the honors. His voice was clear but raspy, because of a trachea tube in his throat, which was hidden by a scarf.

Afterward, Rehnquist wished Bush good luck, then was quickly escorted out of the cold.

Rehnquist also swore in President Bill Clinton eight years earlier. Unbeknownst to Clinton or the public, the justices days earlier had taken a private vote in Clinton v. Jones. Their ruling said the president could not refuse to testify in an ongoing civil lawsuit against him by Paula Jones, who alleged sexual harassment. That triggered a series of events leading to Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, presided over by Rehnquist himself, without the skullcap.

The ‘garbage’ campaign: Why mistakes and distractions could tilt the outcome

If there’s one image that captures the craziness of this campaign, it’s got to be Donald Trump driving around in a garbage truck.

He put on the orange vest and talked to reporters after a Joe Biden blunder put Kamala Harris on the defensive.

And this was after a Trump rally filled with profane insults, including a comic who mocked Puerto Rico as an island of floating garbage.

And that, in turn, followed the spectacle of the former president cooking up some fries at McDonald’s, where he actually likes to eat.

THE FATAL FLAW IN KAMALA HARRIS’ SPEECH, MARRED BY BIDEN’S ‘GARBAGE’ COMMENT

But all this is unfolding against the backdrop of the ugliest and perhaps most divisive race in American history, with each side accusing the other of being a danger to democracy. 

And the tightness of the polls–assuming they’re not off again–has created an almost apocalyptic sense of drama, with many voters worried about post-election violence if Trump loses.

Trump, after all, has survived two impeachments, the Jan. 6 riot, four criminal indictments, one conviction and two assassination attempts. He has spent the last four years insisting, despite numerous failed lawsuits, that the last election was stolen from him.

Can there be more than 500 voters in the six or seven swing states who don’t have a rock-solid opinion of him, positive or negative?

As for Harris, she was a relatively unpopular vice president thrust into a 100-day sprint when Democrats pressured Biden into stepping aside. She soared through the convention but hid from the media – that’s now changed – yet kept sticking to talking points and didn’t make much news. 

What’s more, Harris would be the first female president–and, of course, woman of color–to win the presidency in a country where some men, especially Black men, are reluctant to take that step. 

BACKLASH BUILDS AGAINST BEZOS AS NON-ENDORSEMENT SPARKS HUGE SURGE IN CANCELLATIONS

I have never witnessed such a chasm in coverage as in 2024, not even when Barack Obama first ran for the White House. The Kamala coverage ranges from glowing to gushing, with minimal scrutiny even when she makes false claims. The Donald coverage is overwhelmingly negative, right down to the Hitler comparisons–which the press has pushed for years, even before John Kelly went on the record with his accusations.

It’s not hard to sense the frustration in the press that the improving economy isn’t helping Harris, especially with the news that inflation has dropped to 2.1 percent. 

The New York Times says voters feel "relatively glum" about the economy, with the "lingering pessimism…The job market has been chugging along, although more slowly, overall growth has been healthy and even inflation is more or less back to normal." 

A Wall Street Journal columnist said yesterday the next president will inherit a "remarkable economy," but that 62 percent of those in its poll rated it "not so good" or "poor."

There is generally a lag in public perception, as when George H.W. Bush found when he talked up economic improvements in 1992 but lost to Bill Clinton.

In this supercharged environment, every mistake counts.

JAKE PAUL ENDORSES TRUMP IN FIERY VIDEO TORCHING BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION: ‘CAN’T SIT BACK AND WATCH THIS’

Trump, speaking about criminals who cross the border illegally, said "I told women I will be their protector. They [his advisers] said, ‘Sir, please don’t say that.’ Well, I’m going to do it whether the women like it or not." 

That has an unfortunate ring to it, and Harris said yesterday it is "very offensive to women," including on controlling "their own bodies."

All of which brings us back to the last few days. When every hour counts, every distraction is costly. If you’re explaining, you’re losing. If you’re playing defense, you can’t put points on the board.

Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally was marred by racist and misogynist talk, the coverage of which totally overshadowed his speech. What drew the most attention was comedian Tony Hinchcliffe and his ridicule of Puerto Rico. Podcaster Joe Rogan said he heard the joke the day before and told the comic there would be a big backlash. But the Trump camp hadn’t vetted the speakers.

When Harris naturally denounced the "garbage" language, Trump hopped on the sanitation truck emblazoned with his name.

Biden has been hurting his VP’s candidacy with a series of screwups. First he said of Trump, "Lock him up." Then the president blurted out that "the only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters." He stumbled before adding that this was about the "demonization of Latinos."

Castigating the other side’s voters is about the worst thing you can do, as Hillary Clinton learned eight years ago. That choked off the favorable coverage of her speech on the Ellipse–itself designed to mirror Trump’s Jan. 6 speech–and was the focus of reporters’ questions the next morning.

Harris distanced herself, saying Biden had clarified his remarks and she would never criticize voters who don’t support her. An NBC reporter asked her about it again yesterday.

Trump’s brief stint at McDonald’s was meant to highlight his contention that Harris never worked at one during college, as she has insisted. It was a brilliant tactic and one her side should have conjured up first. 

National Review writer Noah Rothman says the candidates are just "trolling" each other, presenting voters with "a choice between two gratingly flip campaigns that are consumed with frivolities."

I would differ on the main point. The whole point of a campaign is for voters to size up how the candidates perform under pressure, since no one knows what crises may arise. How they react to attacks, stunts and interviews gives us a sense of their rapid-response abilities that go beyond policy positions–especially in such a razor-thin election.  

Playing the Hitler card: Will Trump backers dismiss John Kelly’s attack?

Earlier this year, there was some media chatter about when the Biden campaign would go "full Hitler."

What that meant was, if they started talking about Donald Trump and the Nazi leader so early, what ammunition would they have left for October?

VIDEO SHOWS DEM-ALIGNED INDIVIDUAL FIDGETING WITH MONTANA BALLOT BOX

Well, it’s late October, and the Hitler assault has begun.

It’s not like no one has heard this before. Trump’s detractors across the media landscape have periodically compared him to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Magazines have depicted him with a little mustache. He’s been dismissed as an aspiring dictator who would blow up American democracy, with few of the guardrails that constrained him in his first term.

But now we have John Kelly, his second chief of staff, denouncing his ex-boss in a series of three on-the-record interviews with the New York Times, which were recorded and posted on the paper’s site.

Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general who lost a son in Afghanistan, said he was going public because he was disturbed by Trump’s attacks on "the enemy within," which, as the former president told me in our weekend interview, included Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi. And Kelly was equally concerned that he might use the military against Americans.

Kelly says in the Times audio that Trump meets his definition of a fascist. And in the context of wanting his generals (such as Kelly and Pentagon chief Jim Mattis) to be personally loyal to him, "He commented more than once that, ‘You know, Hitler did some good things, too.’" 

KAMALA HARRIS’ CLOSING MESSAGE IS UNCLEAR, DONALD TRUMP DOMINATES MEDIA BY GOING OFF SCRIPT

Kelly says he told the president "you should never say that" and explained some of the history of Nazi Germany. (Hitler’s generals tried to kill him more than once.)

The general also said that Trump referred to soldiers as "losers" and "suckers" and could not understand their sacrifice. If this and other passages sound familiar, it’s because it’s been previously reported in the Atlantic and elsewhere, rather obviously with Kelly as a background source.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung fired back, saying the former official was offering "debunked stories," had "beclowned" himself and was suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

My question is this: Are John Kelly’s comments going to change the mind of any Trump voters?

They may dismiss the comments as old news. Or say Trump didn’t really mean it, he was just letting off steam. Or question Kelly’s motivation in going public in the final stretch of the campaign.

CBS NEWS GAVE A 'PATHETIC RESPONSE' TO DECEITFUL EDITING ACCUSATIONS: HOWARD KURTZ

It’s not that I’m defending the comments as reported by Kelly, who’s free to say what he wants. I have absolutely nothing good to say about Hitler or the Nazis. I don’t agree with everything Trump says, just as I don’t agree with everything Kamala Harris says.

But how many Trump voters, having lived through nine years of media attacks on the 45th president, having watched the violence of Jan. 6, are going to abandon him now? The answer, in my view, is very few. 

Still, it gave the vice president an opening, since yesterday’s bombshell was detonated by a man who was the highest-ranking staffer in the Trump White House. She read a statement to reporters in Washington without taking questions:

"It is deeply troubling and incredibly dangerous that Donald Trump would invoke Adolf Hitler, the man who is responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Americans. All of this is further evidence for the American people of who Donald Trump really is," Harris said.

I once had a candid chat with Kelly at a White House media party, and when I looked up 10 other reporters had surrounded us, straining to hear what the man who kept a low profile with the press had to say. At the time, the former Homeland Security secretary was being touted as the guy who’d bring military discipline to a chaotic White House after Reince Priebus was let go.

Now the "full Hitler" moment has arrived. Whether it has much impact on a candidate who has survived two impeachments, the fallout after Jan. 6 and two assassination attempts is, at the very least, in doubt.

The practical politics of impeachment: What the math says about the House GOP’s report on Biden

"Impeachable conduct."

"The totality of the corrupt conduct uncovered by the Committees is egregious." 

"A concerted effort to conceal President Biden’s involvement in the family’s influence peddling scheme."

These are the findings of a trio of House committees – led by Republicans – into the conduct of President Biden. It’s the final report of the GOP’s impeachment inquiry into Mr. Biden. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., initiated the inquest verbally last summer, trying to quash an uprising from his right flank. The House finally formalized the probe through a roll call vote in December.

BIDEN COMMITTED ‘IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT,’ ‘DEFRAUDED UNITED STATES TO ENRICH HIS FAMILY’: HOUSE GOP REPORT

Note that many Republicans wanted any impeachment investigation wrapped up by the start of last fall, not a couple of months before the 2024 election.

"Republicans have worked to impede and obstruct any effort to investigate Mr. Trump’s actual and proven corruption, including his unconstitutional receipt, while Commander-in-Chief, of millions of dollars from foreign governments that sought, and often received, favors from his Administration," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, in his own "counter" report. 

House Republicans released their 292-page report hours before the president was scheduled to speak to the Democratic convention in Chicago.

The document argues that Mr. Biden’s conduct warranted sanctions, saying his "flagrant abuse of office is clear: impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal by the Senate."

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., encouraged "all Americans to read this report." But besides thanking the committees for their work, Johnson didn’t signal there would be a vote on impeachment or imply that the House Republican leadership brass would entertain such a possibility. 

That’s because, at this stage, a prospective vote to impeach President Biden would likely fail on the floor.

Why? It’s about the math. There are at least a dozen House Republicans who oppose impeachment. One senior House GOP leadership source characterized a vote now as "moot."

Fox is told Republicans soured further on impeachment when President Biden decided against seeking reelection. Plus, Mr. Biden only has five more months before the end of his term. Moreover, a vote on impeachment would put moderate Republicans from swing districts in a bind as the GOP tries to maintain its slim majority. Trotting out a vote on impeachment – just to have a vote on impeachment at this stage – would likely produce a loss on the floor. Democrats could then boomerang the failed impeachment vote on those vulnerable Republicans. Democrats would underscore how Republicans tried for more than a year to impeach President Biden. And it culminated in a failed vote on the floor.

POLITICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN 1968 AND 2024 AS THE DEMOCRATS RETURN TO CHICAGO

A botched impeachment vote would undercut the Republicans’ report itself and constitute an unforced error for the GOP.

It would also mean Republicans may have placed the emphasis on the wrong syllable – just before the election. Mr. Biden’s issues should be old news to Republicans. But focusing on President Biden, right or wrong, is not where the GOP needs to spend its time. Anything tied to impeachment simply steals the spotlight from the narrative Republicans are trying to craft about Vice President Harris. Republicans are still trying to define Harris. Backpedaling to President Biden diminishes that strategy. 

If House Republicans truly want to impeach the president – and do it by the book – they would likely need at least another public hearing or two. That would also entail a "markup" session by the Judiciary Committee before sending the matter to the House floor. 

The measure would then go to the House Rules Committee. Then the floor for debate and vote.

And how many articles of impeachment could the GOP engineer for President Biden? One? Two? Four?

COMMENTATOR ON LEFT-LEANING SQUAWK BOX BLASTS DEMS FOR HAVING CLINTON AT DNC

The House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas earlier this year, slapping him with two articles of impeachment: breaking the law and breaching the public trust.

The House levied a singular article of impeachment against former President Trump in 2021 for "incitement of insurrection" after the riot at the Capitol.

In 1998, the House Judiciary Committee prepared four articles of impeachment for former President Clinton after his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The House only approved two articles, lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The House rejected the other articles.

House Republicans will read and consider the impeachment report over the remainder of the congressional recess. Expect some internal debate when House Republicans first meet in a GOP Conference meeting on the morning of September 10.  

But just because House Republican leaders don’t want the House to tangle with impeachment doesn’t mean there won’t be pressure to do so. It’s possible there could be an attempt by hardline conservatives to force a vote on the floor. Fox is told that Republican leaders are bracing for that possibility when the House returns. A rank-and-file Republican member could compel a vote on impeachment via a "privileged" resolution. Such specialized resolutions must come to the floor right away or within two legislative days. Democrats would likely move to table or kill the resolution. Republicans are then placed in the dubious position of voting against tabling the resolution to bring it to the floor – or voting to kill it.

One senior House Democratic source even speculated to Fox that since it was doubtful the House could impeach President Biden, maybe Democrats wouldn’t try to table impeachment. They’d leave that up to Republicans. Imagine this scenario: Republicans moving to table their own impeachment measure. That would certainly slather some egg on the face of the GOP.

But that’s the least of the problems for Republicans. A vote to table the impeachment resolution is one step removed from actually voting on impeachment itself. A failure to table the resolution prompts the House to vote, up or down, on impeachment itself. A vote where Republicans reject impeachment – after they talked about it for the better part of this Congress – looks ham-fisted. It also underscores the problem Republicans struggled with since early 2023 – under both McCarthy and Johnson: ultra-conservative members create headaches for the rest of the party. That includes fights over who should be Speaker to battles over government funding.

In its "conclusion" section of its report, the trifecta of House committees declare the President’s deeds amount "to impeachable conduct." The committees add that it's now up to the full House for "evaluation and consideration of appropriate next steps."

Most Republicans don’t want to wrestle with the impeachment of an elderly president who is partly out the door. Especially as Republicans try to maintain a threadbare House majority – and as former President Trump faces a serious challenge from Vice President Harris. The macro politics of the 2024 election may dictate that impeachment dies quietly on the vine. But the micro politics of the House Republican Conference could suggest something else. 

Former President Bill Clinton’s second term as POTUS was entangled with scandal, ended with impeachment

Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States. 

He was born on Aug. 19, 1946, as William Jefferson Blythe III. His parents were, William Jefferson Blythe II, who died in a car accident before Clinton was born, and Virginia Cassidy Blythe. Clinton was raised by his grandparents until his mother returned from nursing school.

Clinton, a Democrat, served two terms in the White House, but was impeached by the House of Representatives during his second term on Dec. 19, 1998, for committing perjury before a grand jury and obstructing justice.

Before Clinton led the nation as a two-term president, he graduated from Georgetown University. He later received a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University and a law degree from Yale University in 1973. 

His political venture started in Arkansas, where he was elected attorney general in 1976 after being defeated in his first run for Congress two years prior. 

WHAT MAKES A PRESIDENT GREAT?

In 1978, he became governor of Arkansas, but lost for a second term. 

Four years later, he returned to his role as governor, and then started his presidential campaign against Republican George H.W. Bush

In 1992, Clinton and his running mate, Albert Gore Jr., were successful in their campaign, defeating Bush and independent candidate Ross Perot for the White House. 

In 1996, Clinton won a second term as president, this time defeating Republican Bob Dole and, again, independent candidate Perot. 

His presidency became known for accomplishments such as high homeownership, 22 million jobs created and low unemployment rates, but scandal ensued during his terms, too. 

CLINTONS ENDORSE KAMALA HARRIS HOURS AFTER BIDEN DROPS OUT

During Clinton’s second term as president, he was impeached by the House of Representatives. 

His impeachment partly stemmed from sexual harassment claims against Clinton by Paula Jones, that were said to have occurred before he was elected president, according to a research guide by the Library of Congress. 

After Clinton was re-elected, evidence came to light of an extramarital affair between the president and Monica Lewinsky, a White House Intern. 

Initially, Clinton denied the affair and Lewinsky corroborated the sworn testimony of Clinton.

The investigation was led by the late Kenneth Starr. Before the grand jury, Lewinsky admitted to the sexual relationship with Clinton, and the president admitted to the affair. 

In December 1998, the House voted in favor of two articles of impeachment against Clinton, finding that he had committed perjury and obstructed justice. He became the second president in American history to be impeached, the first being Andrew Johnson. 

During the Senate trial of 1999, Clinton was acquitted. 

After the trial was over, Clinton apologized to Congress and the American people for his behavior, and continued his term as president. 

Following his presidency, he continued to be involved in politics. He has shown unwavering support for Democrats, including his wife, Hillary Clinton, who ran for the presidency herself in 2016, but was defeated by Donald Trump

Clinton has also penned a number of books through the years, including after his presidency, such as "My Life," "Back to Work" and "Citizen: My Life After the White House."

Trump’s lead just won’t budge: Why the debates may be Biden’s last shot

The presidential campaign is as frozen as the Arctic Circle.

Virtually nothing seems to melt the ice caps that have encased the race. 

The former president convicted of 34 felonies? Feels like it happened months ago, without exactly dooming the Trump candidacy.

TRUMP FOUND GUILTY BUT, FACING BIDEN, COULD STILL WIN BACK THE WHITE HOUSE

The current president’s son, also convicted of felonies? Now that’s deemed a mere distraction by those who used an impeachment inquiry to try to sink the Biden campaign.

Each attack, each smear, each controversy dominates the news and then quickly yields to the next real or perceived outrage, leaving little lasting impression on the shape of the race.

All this is bad news for Joe Biden, who has an anemic 38 percent approval rating and is on track to lose, despite the apparent closeness of the contest.

While Trump’s lead in such core battleground states as Michigan and Pennsylvania is often just 2 to 3 points, it’s been remarkably consistent (with the president having a slight edge in Wisconsin). If Scranton Joe can’t win Pennsylvania despite endless trips there, the election is over.

That’s why Biden abruptly challenged Trump to two debates, with the first one, on CNN, in less than 10 days. It’s really his last chance to bring some heat and shake up the race.

Now I could make the argument that the Trump team has lowered expectations for Biden to the point that if he avoids major gaffes and doesn’t fall off the stage, he wins. The CNN rules – two-minute answers, no notes, muting the opponent’s mike – will also favor the president.

VEEPSTAKES VERVE: CONTENDERS CREATE MEDIA BOOMLETS WITH LEAKS AND MANIPULATION

But debates can be overrated. Mitt Romney clobbered Barack Obama in their first debate and it didn’t matter. Hillary Clinton arguably won two or even three of her debates against Trump and it didn’t matter. 

The pressure is on Biden, who’s drilling with former top aide Ron Klain, to show that he’s aggressive and feisty as well as knowledgeable. Trump, who is doing only informal prep, will be hailed by his base no matter what he says or does.

In short, it will take something highly unusual to change many minds. Most Americans already know what they think of these guys.

The same goes for the Trump veepstakes. As Donald Trump told me, it doesn’t matter much because people vote for the top of the ticket. I think Doug Burgum has a somewhat better chance than when I first interviewed him three weeks ago, on this shorter short list that seems to include Tim Scott, Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance. 

But I can’t see that changing the race’s trajectory. What’s striking is that the anchors are now handling these as "vetting" interviews about each candidate’s record, because they believe one of them may well be moving into the vice president’s mansion.

Trump’s GOP unity day on the Hill got muddied when he criticized Milwaukee, the host city for next month’s convention. Even though Trump said he was talking mainly about crime in the city – which is actually down substantially this year – I’m not sure why he needed to go there.

The 78-year-old Trump is so anxious to depict the 81-year-old Biden as mentally unfit for the job that minor incidents are being exaggerated and distorted. There’s no question, as I said on the air, that Biden often comes across as frail and confused. 

But after a $30-million L.A. fundraiser over the weekend, Obama grabbed his arm and then kept touching his back as they exited the stage. This went viral as the former president was depicted as "leading" his onetime VP away.

Earlier, the New York Post, taking its lead from the RNC, misleadingly cropped a photo as if Biden was talking to no one at the G-7 in Italy. A wider angle showed Biden was saying a few words and giving a thumbs up to a skydiver who had landed next to the world leaders before the Italian prime minister led him back to the group. 

THERE’S ‘CORROSION’ IN HOW THE MEDIA COVERS POLITICS: LUCY CALDWELL

Despite a couple of flashy media headlines, I did not criticize Fox’s coverage, though sometimes that comes with the job. I made a point of saying that the coverage by "Fox & Friends" was perfectly straightforward. We played a clip of Sean Hannity criticizing Biden, but there was no suggestion that he didn’t show the proper footage; he was paired with Joe Scarborough hitting Biden’s critics, as we often do to convey the range of commentary.

In my view, there’s little doubt that most of the media believe Trump will win the election, and here’s the proof.

The New York Times just ran a deep dive on how the Trump resistance is already laying the groundwork to battle and stymie him in a second term.

These groups "are drafting potential lawsuits in case he is elected in November and carries out mass deportations, as he has vowed. One group has hired a new auditor to withstand any attempt by a second Trump administration to unleash the Internal Revenue Service against them. Democratic-run state governments are even stockpiling abortion medication.

"A sprawling network of Democratic officials, progressive activists, watchdog groups and ex-Republicans has been taking extraordinary steps to prepare for a potential second Trump presidency, drawn together by the fear that Mr. Trump’s return to power would pose a grave threat not just to their agenda but to American democracy itself." 

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

A newspaper simply doesn’t devote the enormous resources the Times did to this investigative piece without believing a Trump victory is at the least very likely.

Some groups are described as "wary" of discussing their plans for fear of signaling a lack of confidence in the Biden campaign, which is exactly what it signals.

And that brings us back to the CNN debate.

Biden is really running out of time to change the narrative of the race. The debate will probably be a wash, but it’s his only shot. Otherwise, the frozen campaign will wind up freezing him out.

SCOTUS weighs monumental constitutional fight over Trump immunity claim

The Supreme Court waded cautiously Thursday in a landmark area of law it has never before encountered: whether former presidents have "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution, stemming from the special counsel's federal election interference case.

In a special courtroom session lasting more than two and a half hours, the justices appeared to be looking for middle ground that might see at least some of Trump's sweeping claims dismissed, while still allowing future presidents to be criminally exempt from clearly official executive functions — like their role as commander in chief.

The official question the justices are confronting: "Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?"

SUPREME COURT SHARPLY AT ODDS OVER EMERGENCY ROOM ABORTION ACCESS IN STATES' RIGHTS CHALLENGE

In riveting arguments, a partisan divide developed early on the nine-member bench, as it weighed whether and when executive official duties versus private conduct in office could be subject to prosecution.

Both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications for future presidents.

"If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?" asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."        

Justice Samuel Alito asked, "If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?"

Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes, however the court rules: "This will have huge implications for the presidency."

Trump was not in attendance at the argument but talked about the stakes when greeting supporters at a New York construction site.

"A president has to have immunity," he said Thursday morning. "If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president, you won't have a president."

The underlying factor is time — whether the court's expedited ruling, expected in May or June, would allow any criminal trial to get underway before the November presidential election. Depending on the outcome, jury selection could begin by late summer or early fall, or the case could be delayed indefinitely or dismissed altogether. 

SUPREME COURT SHARPLY DIVIDED OVER ENFORCING MUNICIPAL HOMELESS CAMPING BAN

The stakes could not be higher, for both the immediate political prospects and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. 

As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his broad constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority — with three of its members having been appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election results, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Smith and several of his deputies attended the arguments. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO REVIEW WHETHER TRUMP IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IN FEDERAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

The lengthy courtroom arguments raised a series of hypotheticals to explore the "outer perimeter" of criminal executive liability.

Several justices wondered whether a president could someday be prosecuted for ordering the assassination by his military of a political rival; ordering a nuclear weapons strike; or demanding a bribe for a political appointment.

"If you expunge the official part from the indictment, that's like a one-legged stool, right?" said Chief Justice John Roberts, suggesting official executive acts could be separated from partisan, unofficial acts. "I mean, giving somebody money isn't bribery unless you get something in exchange. And if what you get in exchange is to become the ambassador of a particular country, that is official: the appointment that's within the president's prerogatives. The unofficial part: I'm going to get $1,000,000 for it."

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the president could stage a coup to remain in office. When John Sauer, Trump's attorney, hedged on an answer, Kagan replied, "That answer sounds to me as though, under my test, it's an official act," subject to post-office prosecution. "But that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?"

She added there was no immunity clause in the Constitution for a good reason. "Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?"

Michael Dreeben, attorney for the Special Counsel’s office, defended the government’s position.

"It's baked into the Constitution that any president knows that they are exposed to potential criminal prosecution," he said. "It's common ground that all former presidents have known that they could be indicted and convicted. And Watergate cemented that understanding."

Sauer suggested only an impeachment and conviction in the Senate could lead to future criminal prosecution of an ex-president.

"There are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench," said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, pointing to her colleagues, "and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment. So why is the president different when the impeachment clause doesn't say so?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor focused on the specific allegations facing Trump and other potential criminal liability, which no jury has yet considered. "I'm having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe and a countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that."

TRUMP WARNS THAT IF HE LOSES PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, SO WILL 'CROOKED' JOE BIDEN

But Kavanaugh, who served as President George W. Bush's staff secretary, a key White House legal adviser on executive power, offered larger concerns.

"I'm not focused on the here and now of this case. I'm very concerned about the future," he said.

"We're writing a rule for the ages," added Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: another federal case over his handling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York case over alleged fraud involving hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York state case began April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Again, depending on how the court rules, proceedings may not get underway until later this summer, early fall, or perhaps much later.

The wildest of wildcards: Trump wins re-election and then, upon taking office, orders his attorney general to dismiss the special counsel and his cases. Some justices wondered if Trump — if re-elected — could execute a self-pardon for all past and future crimes.

But the practical fact is that Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited, so a ruling could come sooner. 

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" — meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume. 

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial. 

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean his election interference prosecution collapses and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases.

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court — an indefinite delay in any trial, that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.  

The case is Trump v. U.S. (23-939).

Supreme Court prepares to debate Trump immunity claim in election interference case

In what may be the most closely watched case this term at the Supreme Court – involving the highest-profile appellant – former President Donald Trump has offered a sweeping argument for why he should not face trial for alleged election interference.

The high court will hold arguments Thursday morning in what could determine the former president's personal and political future. As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority – with three of its members appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.  

The official question the justices will consider: Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?

This is new territory for the Supreme Court and the nation. No current or former president has ever been criminally indicted.

The stakes could not be higher – both for the immediate election prospects, and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. But it will be the second time this term the high court will hear a case directly involving the former president. 

TRUMP HUSH MONEY TRIAL ENTERS DAY 2

On March 4, the justices unanimously ruled that Trump could remain on the Colorado primary ballot over claims he committed insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots.

The decision to intervene at this stage in the immunity dispute is a mixed bag for both Trump and the Special Counsel. The defendant wanted to delay the process longer – ideally past the November election – and Jack Smith wanted the high court appeal dismissed immediately so any trial could get back on track quickly. 

A federal appeals court had unanimously ruled against Trump on the immunity question.

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the three-judge panel wrote. "But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution." 

Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election result, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

In its brief on the merits submitted this month, the Special Counsel told the high court that "presidents are not above the law."

"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," said the government. 

But Trump's legal team told the high court, "A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents."

His lawyers added: "The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency."

In a series of supporting briefs, 19 GOP-controlled states and more than two dozen Republican members of Congress are among those backing Trump's legal positions.

Some of the issues the court will have to consider:

Can a former president ever be prosecuted for "official acts," or does he enjoy "absolute immunity?"

By including the words "whether and to what extent" in its official question framing the case, the Supreme Court – in the eyes of many legal scholars – may be prepared to limit or narrow "absolute immunity," at least in this case.

But court precedent may give Trump some protection – that former presidents should not face civil liability "predicated on his official acts" (Fitzgerald v. Nixon, 1982). Trump, of course, is facing criminal charges brought by the government. The question remains: Will the court now extend any implied civil protection to a criminal prosecution? 

What constitutes an official act of a president? Will the court distinguish between Trump's alleged election interference as clearly acting in his executive capacity, or was he acting in a purely political or personal capacity as an incumbent candidate? 

A federal appeals court that rejected Trump's arguments in a separate civil lawsuit alleging that he incited the violent Capitol mob with his "Stop the Steal" rally remarks on Jan. 6, 2021 concluded that "his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act." Trump is making the same immunity claims in those pending lawsuits.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate 2020 case involving Trump financial records sought by New York prosecutors, wrote, "This Court has recognized absolute immunity for the President from 'damages liability predicated on his official acts,' But we have rejected absolute immunity from damages actions for a President's nonofficial conduct." 

Thomas cited the 1997 Clinton v. Jones case, which determined that a sitting president did not have immunity from civil suits over his conduct prior to taking office and unrelated to his office. Again, the current dispute involves a criminal prosecution, and the justices may weigh whether that deserves greater deference to the constitutional claims from both sides.

What acts are within the outer rim of a president's constitutional duties?  

The lower federal courts deciding the matter pointedly avoided addressing that issue, but the high court now has full discretion to take it up. Questions or hypotheticals from the bench may offer hints about how broadly the justices may want to explore the orbit of presidential authority, when weighing political or "discretionary" acts vs. duty-bound or "ministerial" acts.

During January oral arguments before the DC-based federal appeals court, Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, suggested that if a president were to order Seal Team Six military commandos to assassinate a political rival, he could then be criminally prosecuted only if first found guilty by Congress through the impeachment process. 

Given the stakes, the Supreme Court may compromise here and issue a mixed ruling: rejecting Trump's broad immunity claims while preserving certain vital executive functions, like the national security role of commander-in-chief. The big unknown is what side Trump's election-related conduct would fall, in the eyes of the nine justices.  

Do federal courts have any jurisdiction to consider a president's official discretionary decisions?  

On this separation-of-powers question, Smith's team and others have cited the 1952 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case that limited a president's power to seize private property – even in a wartime emergency – absent any express congressional authorization. That landmark ruling curbing executive power also affirmed the judiciary's binding role to review a president's actions in office.

Will the Supreme Court ultimately decide not to decide, and throw the competing issues back to the lower courts for further review?

The justices may get buyer's remorse and conclude that weighty questions were not fully considered at the intermediate appellate or trial court level. That could significantly delay any trial.

Or they may let the trial play out first, and give both sides a chance to make their claims before a jury. Depending on the verdict, the Supreme Court would then likely revisit the immunity questions. 

Despite Trump's urging, the court pointedly chose not to address another lingering issue: whether the criminal prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment's ban on "double jeopardy," since he was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021 for election subversion, following his second impeachment.       

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: He faces a federal case over his alleged mishandling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York fraud case involving alleged hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York case began on April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Depending on how the court rules, proceedings might not get underway until later this summer, in early fall or perhaps much later.

EXCUSED JUROR REVEALS SELECTION PROCESS FOR TRUMP'S HUSH MONEY TRIAL: 'NOT A FAN'

There is one other factor to consider: Trump could win re-election and then, upon taking office, order his attorney general to dismiss the Special Counsel and all his cases. Neither side's legal team has yet to publicly speculate on that scenario. 

So, Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited – so a ruling could come sooner.  

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" – meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume.  

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial.  

Chutkan said in December that she does not have jurisdiction over the matter while it is pending before the Supreme Court, and she put a pause on the case against him until the justices decide the matter on the merits.

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean that his election interference prosecution collapses, and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases. 

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win, even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court – an indefinite delay in any trial that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.   

Biden mocks Trump for legal woes: ‘A little busy right now’

President Biden took a jab at his presumptive Republican rival for the presidency while campaigning in Pennsylvania.

Biden made the remark while speaking at the United Steelworkers headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday.

"Under my predecessor, who’s a little busy right now, Pennsylvania lost 275,000 jobs," Biden said while boasting of his economic policies' benefit to blue collar workers.

WHITE HOUSE DEEMS HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 'OVER,' PRESIDENT BIDEN FORMALLY DECLINES TO TESTIFY

United Steelworkers endorsed the Biden-Harris ticket last month, applauding the president's investments in "worker-centered trade policy."

"President Biden proved time and again during his first term that he stands with working families," USW International President David McCall said in the March announcement. 

He added, "His vision and leadership allowed our nation to strengthen workers’ access to collective bargaining, grow the middle class, and embark on a path to widespread prosperity."

BIDEN RETURNS TO CAMPAIGN TRAIL AS TRUMP FORCED TO REMAIN IN COURT FOR SECOND DAY OF NEW YORK HUSH MONEY TRIAL

While Biden is on the road campaigning, Trump is currently stuck in New York City for his criminal trial surrounding alleged hush money payments to Stormy Daniels during his successful 2016 presidential campaign. 

Trump has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. It is the first ever criminal trial of a former president.

Trump has been ordered to attend the daily court proceedings of the trial. Judge Juan Merchan told Trump that if he fails to be present, a warrant will be issued for his arrest.

"It’s a scam. It’s a political witch hunt," Trump said after court adjourned Monday. Trump pleaded not guilty to all counts last year.

Fox News Digital's Lawrence Richard contributed to this report.