In the future, the folks who decide what the POTUS is gonna fly will have to change their logic in why they prefer a four engine airplane as opposed to two.

I'm sure having the ability to takeoff with one engine out (from a normal length runway) is a requirement as well as the subsequent range/endurance required. Are there any two engine platforms that can match those four engine specs with an engine out?

new AF-1
 

T7 maybe? I doubt the 25 leaves ADW at max gross. So a T7 could probably do it easy.

Hardening a 747-8 against EMP would be a mess.

This isn't about AF-1 being an outdated aircraft, we all know the current models have more technology on them to last another decade (if not longer) never mind just a few more years, this is about politics and giving the Boeing company an indirect loan to avoid shutting down the 747....

All the reasons listed above are reasons it is 4 engine. It is not just an exec transport, it is a mobile whitehouse, command and control bunker, and EMP hardened nuclear war survivable machine. The requirements for that thing are ridiculous.
Honestly, the 747 is best suited for that mission. When you have something that important, efficiency isn't even in the top 25 most important things.

Years ago the government preferred 4 engines for much VIP transport. That is how the Jetstar and McDonnel Douglas 220 ended up with 4 engines.

In the future when no 4 engine platforms are available, then yes, but for now and the foreseeable future, not a chance in hell.

That's what I said...speaking of AF-1 SAM 26000. My old man was an FE in the 1st MAS.

National Museum of the U.S. Air Force - Virtual Tour

I'd imagine a 4 engine aircraft would do a lot better vs. a heat seeking missile than it's 2 engined brethren. VS a RADAR shooter it probably doesn't matter. I would imagine they could just engage death blossom and make every male with 250 nm sterile if they encountered a RADAR threat anyway.