Why Trump’s running mate could be the most important VP pick of our time

Trump at a podium, pointing out to the left as he speaks, wearing a suit and a MAGA hat.

Former US President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event at Wildwood Beach in Wildwood, New Jersey, on May 11, 2024.

In a normal presidential campaign, the announcement of a running mate gets a lot of media attention — but has little immediate importance. 

But Donald Trump’s campaign this year is not normal. And his veep pick this year could well be the most important such choice of our time – with major implications for the future of both the Republican Party and American democracy as a whole.

The vice presidency of the United States is an odd office. Its main function is to simply have someone on deck if the president dies or resigns. But the office has very few formal powers. Modern presidents sometimes delegate tasks for their vice president to do, but veeps mostly just hang around waiting for their chance at the big job. “I am nothing, but I may be everything,” the country’s first vice president, John Adams, famously said.

Veeps matter because they have a decent chance of later becoming president, even though most don’t: 15 of our 49 veeps so far have later gotten the big job. The more common way to do that is the abrupt one — nine ascended because the president died or resigned. But six others later got elected in their own right, including, of course, the current president.

So usually, the veep is the (possible) future of the party, but a new veep typically has to wait eight years (through a presidential reelection campaign) to get to that future, and his or her nearer-term importance in governing is less clear. But there are three unusual features about Trump’s situation that mean his veep pick will be more immediately important than usual.

1) Trump is term-limited, and there’s much uncertainty about the post-Trump GOP: Let’s start with the obvious: If Trump wins in November, the Constitution is clear that he can’t be elected for another term in 2028. So unless there’s a total collapse in constitutional government and the rule of law — fingers crossed there’s not! — he starts as a lame duck. Enter his vice president.

Modern veeps are nationally known figures who have at least a good shot at winning their party’s presidential nomination in the future. There have been 20 presidential elections since World War II, and 12 have featured a veep — current or former — on the ballot. So Trump’s VP will be widely interpreted as his possible successor.

On top of that, Trump’s persona has loomed so large over GOP politics for the past decade that it’s hard to imagine what the post-Trump Republican Party will look like. His choice could well determine whether the party gets even more extreme, or whether there’s a relative return to normalcy.

2) Trump poses threats to democracy — would his VP stand up to him? Typically, the veep’s only formal power of note (besides being the successor-in-waiting) is being the tie-breaking Senate vote, as the president of the Senate. But on January 6, 2021, another VP duty — presiding over Congress’s counting of the presidential electoral votes — became hugely important as Trump tried to steal the election from Joe Biden.

The count is usually a formality, but Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to effectively seize control of the vote count, tossing out swing state results where Biden won. Had Pence actually done that, it would have thrown the process into chaos. But, relying on legal advice that he had no such authority — and, perhaps, on his own conscience — Pence refused. What if someone more unscrupulous had been in the VP job on that day? 

The exact circumstances of the 2020 election crisis are unlikely to repeat. But a second-term Trump may well try to degrade democracy in other ways that are difficult to precisely foresee. Which raises the question: Will Trump’s future veep stand up and defend democracy, or not?

The early signs aren’t great. Last week, we saw the spectacle of various veep hopefuls trekking to New York City to spin for Trump outside of his criminal trial, competing over who could come up with the most fulsome protest of how unfairly Trump was being treated by the legal system.

With 2028 coming around so soon, the incentives for the VP to remain in Trump’s good graces will be strong, since falling out of his favor could sink any chance of becoming president. That may mean turning a blind eye to Trump’s abuses of power. Or the veep could end up doing the right thing; anything’s possible.

3) Trump’s age and corruption make it more likely he’d leave office involuntarily ahead of schedule: Finally, though veeps have often gone on to be elected president, the more common way they’ve ended up in the job is through its sudden vacancy, due to health or scandal reasons. Both are a bit more likely to befall Trump than the average president.

Trump is about to turn 78, and his advanced age makes it somewhat more likely that health reasons would prevent him from making it all the way through another four-year term. The odds of that are probably still low — Trump isn’t known to have serious health problems and would benefit from top-notch care. Still, sometimes old people decline quickly. (All this applies to Biden as well, of course.)

Apart from death, the only other reason the presidency has been vacated early is a corruption scandal, when Nixon resigned to avert certain impeachment and removal from office. Trump is famously corrupt and is already the only president to be impeached twice. So it isn’t much of a stretch to suspect that there might be some corruption or abuse of power scandals leading to another Trump impeachment effort in his next term.

Conviction seems less plausible: It’s possible that, no matter what Trump ended up doing, there wouldn’t be enough Senate Republicans willing to remove him from power. 

Still, it is at least theoretically possible that there is a line he could cross that would finally lead to Congress booting him. If so, the vice president would be there to take his job.

This story originally appeared in Today, Explained, Vox’s flagship daily newsletter. Sign up here for future editions.

Related articles

Jon Ossoff – Did Mike Collins help double health insurance premiums for 1 million Georgians?

President Donald Trump and U.S. Rep. Mike Collins “doubled health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians and threw 300,000 Georgians off their insurance altogether.”

Ex-Trump official pinpoints exact moment Trump’s ‘mentality changed’ — for the worse



Joe Kent, the former senior intelligence official who resigned from the Trump administration in protest of the Iran war, made a stunning claim Monday that “something” happened to President Donald Trump that “changed” him from that point forward.

“Something in the late spring, early summer time frame happened – I don’t know what happened,” Kent said during an appearance on the “Julian Dorey Podcast” published on Monday.

“I can’t tell you why his mentality changed, but it went from, ‘we’re gonna create the most space we can for [Iran] negotiations and we’re not interested in the war,’ to, ‘okay, we’re gonna support the Israelis, do Midnight Hammer and we’re gonna continue to entertain this.’”

A key pledge of Trump during his 2024 campaign was that he would not send Americans “to fight and die in stupid foreign wars that never end,” reiterating that promise during his victory speech: “I’m not going to start a war,” he said.

And yet, in late February, Trump launched Operation Epic Fury with a large-scale attack on Iran that months later now risks sparking a broader war.

Kent, who's long championed Trump's anti-interventionist rhetoric, said he was confused by the president's apparent shift, and while he could narrow down roughly when it happened, he still couldn't say what caused it.

“I don’t know what happened. And so for me, when something like that happens, from an intelligence background, you do have to step back and look at what else could be influencing the president,” Kent said.

“Did he just change his mind? For him to go through with [launching the Iran war], ultimately, I do think there’s potentially other factors there: so what could those other factors be? Why would a president make decisions that he doesn’t agree with?”

Other conservative figures have speculated as to why Trump launched a war against Iran despite his frequent anti-war rhetoric, including prominent conservative figure Tucker Carlson, who in April floated a disturbing theory that a “blackmail” operation perpetrated by the Israeli government could potentially have forced the president’s hand.

Trump RUNS AWAY from PRESS as WAR EXPLODES!!!

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald...

Shock as GOP leader moans that history’s ‘oppressors’ don’t get celebrated



A House Republican berated Smithsonian history director Anthea Hartig, suggesting that historical 'oppressors' should receive more celebration.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), chair of the House Oversight subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, called the hearing Tuesday to challenge how the National Museum of American History tells the nation's story.

It marked the first time a top Smithsonian leader had been publicly grilled by Congress since President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing officials to "remove improper ideology" from the institution's museums.

Burchett opened Tuesday's session by accusing the museum of having "become infected by a woke ideology that has seeped into public displays, educational materials, and planning documents."

"But in the museum's current telling, history is just an ongoing power struggle between oppressors and the oppressed," Burchett said. "Only the oppressed are celebrated, especially illegal immigrants."

Burchett then challenged Hartig over exhibits on "race, identity, gender, and sexuality."

"Yes, sir," Hartig replied. "We strive to create a museum where our visitors will be inspired by the collections, programs, and exhibitions, and they will choose what they each will do to keep our American democracy strong and vibrant, and they'll play that chosen part with passion. That is our hope."

Burchett pointed to images he had posted on a display board behind him, describing what he called sexually explicit content in museum exhibits.

"You have pictures of bondage," the lawmaker complained. "You have some overtly sexual things up there. You have transgender folks...?"

"The exhibition and project you're referring to is Girlhood: It's Complicated, which was a temporary exhibit in our museum that closed —" Hartig began.

"Ma'am, I didn't ask you that," Burchett cut her off. "I asked you: do you think it is appropriate?"

Hartig said the exhibit had featured, with the author's permission, a 13-year-old's diary that covered sleepovers, Latin class, and math exams. She said the exhibit carried a parental advisory label at its entrance.

"Do you think that is appropriate for a child to see? Yes or no?" Burchett pressed.

"I understand your question, sir," Hartig said.

"No — don't. You're not answering. You're just running on, ma'am," Burchett shot back.

In his closing moments, Burchett cited three statements he attributed to Hartig — that America was founded on "the supremacy of white men," that loving America is "very complicated," and that the nation's 250th anniversary is worth "problematizing."

"It is the honor of my career to serve as the Elizabeth MacMillan Director of the National Museum of American History," Hartig replied when asked if she should continue leading the museum.