Speculation over a potential matchup between Donald Trump and Barack Obama in a hypothetical 2028 presidential election has captured public attention, despite the constitutional impossibility under the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. Trump has occasionally hinted at the idea of a third term, suggesting there may be ways to pursue it, though he emphasized that he is focused on completing his current term. Obama, on the other hand, has remained largely silent on the subject, leaving the scenario entirely in the realm of speculation and political imagination.
Recent polling highlights public sentiment regarding the matchup. A survey by Daily Mail and J.L. Partners of 1,013 registered voters found that 52% would choose Obama, while 41% would support Trump. Among minority voters, support for Obama was particularly strong, with 73% of Hispanic voters and 68% of Black voters expressing preference for the former president. Obama was the only recent Democratic figure in these hypothetical polls to outperform Trump; when other Democrats like Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris were included, Trump generally led. These results underscore Obama’s continued popularity and the enduring political polarization surrounding Trump, reflecting the long shadow both figures cast over 21st-century American politics.
Despite the fascination, a Trump–Obama race remains constitutionally impossible without a major overhaul of the 22nd Amendment, which would require approval from two-thirds of Congress and ratification by at least 38 states—a highly improbable scenario. Trump has teased that “there are methods,” leaving the door open for speculation, but practical and legal realities make such a contest unrealistic. Nevertheless, the poll and public discussion illustrate the enduring cultural and political prominence of both leaders, highlighting the American public’s fascination with “what if” scenarios that stretch beyond conventional political boundaries, even if they remain entirely theoretical.
Following his unconditional pardon from President Biden, Hunter Biden is now facing allegations of owing over $300,000 in unpaid rent to former landlords.Shaun Maguire, a partner at the venture capital firm Sequoia, reacted to news of the pardon on social media, claiming that the president’s son has accumulated substantial unpaid rent debts amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Read Less
“So what happens to the $300k+ in back pay rent that Hunter Biden owes my family from 2019-2020? Is that pardoned now? Thanks Joe,” Maguire wrote in a post on X.
On Sunday, President Biden issued a “full and unconditional pardon” for his son Hunter Biden, covering any federal crimes committed or potentially committed between January 1, 2014, and December 1, 2024. Hunter Biden has faced federal charges related to tax violations and allegations of providing false information about his substance abuse issues on a firearm background check form. The move marks a shift from President Biden’s earlier statements that he would not pardon his son
“Hunter was our tenant in Venice, CA. Didn’t pay rent for over a year. Tried to pay w/ art made from his own feces. Absolute s– bag,” Maguire wrote, adding in a follow-up post that the rent was $25,000 a month for the house, which is located on the canals in the city, Fox Business reported.
He also said that Hunter “changed the locks and used secret service to enforce. We had no access to the property.”
When a social media user asked if Maguire and his family had tried to evict Hunter Biden over the unpaid rent, Maguire responded by saying that the Bidens are “kind of a scary family to go after.”
Maguire’s allegations of unpaid rent would be a civil matter and are not covered by a presidential pardon, which applies exclusively to federal crimes. Maguire’s claim follows a previous allegation that Hunter Biden failed to pay a landlord tens of thousands of dollars in rent.
Last year, DailyMail.com reported, citing sources familiar with the situation, that Hunter Biden owed Sweetgreen CEO and co-founder Jonathan Neman $80,000 in back rent—equivalent to about three months’ rent for a $25,000-a-month house in Venice.
A federal judge has officially ended Hunter Biden’s tax case after Joe Biden pardoned his son, but not before harshly criticizing the president’s announcement about the clemency as misleading.
In a five-page order, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi of the Central District of California, a Trump appointee, said that “representations contained” in the president’s news release about the pardon “stand in tension with the case record.”
The judge also said he didn’t agree with the president’s statement because it was hurtful to many public officials. He said that the pardon itself covered hours of unacceptable behavior in the future without permission.
“The President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions,’ implying that Mr. Biden was among those individuals who untimely paid taxes due to addiction,” Scarsi wrote. “But he is not.”
He added that also Joe Biden’s claim that his son was “singled out” and “treated differently” made it sound like many people in the legal system, including Scarsi and the president’s own DOJ workers, did something wrong.
“Two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the President,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges. In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people.”
Finally, Scarsi said that it wasn’t his job to say whether or not Joe Biden’s pardon was legal, but the fact that the president signed it on December 1 and included action “through” that same day meant that the president was breaking the Constitution by letting Hunter Biden get away with future crimes.