Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Constitutional Grammarian
"Citing the federal officer removal statute, President Trump filed a timely notice of removal in federal court."

Yep. And he wasn't going to prevail on that motion. From the below article:

The 1948 statute was not drafted on a blank slate. The phrase “officer of the United States” appears in several important provisions of the Constitution. And drafters of the federal statute can reasonably rely on how that phrase was understood for nearly two centuries. For example, the president has the power to nominate “officers of the United States.” This text strongly suggests that the president himself is not an “officer of the United States.” And the House of Representatives can impeach “the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States.” Justice Joseph Story explained that the Constitution’s drafters’ listing the presidency and vice presidency separate and apart from the “Officers of the United States” suggests that these appointed positions are distinct from the former elected positions.

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized a distinction between the “officers of the United States,” who are appointed, and elected officials, like the president. In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), Chief Justice John Roberts observed that “[t]he people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’” These latter positions are appointed. A century earlier, the Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion about a statute that also used the phrase “officers of the United States.” In United States v. Mouat (1888), the Court explained that a person who does not “hold[] his place by virtue of an appointment ... is not strictly speaking, an officer of the United States” (emphasis added). The president, who is elected and not appointed, is not an “officer of the United States.”

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/a...

Occam's razor says the President isn't an officer. Officers are appointed, and the President isn't.