Rewritten Title: The 22nd Amendment in the Spotlight: Examining the Legal and Political Hurdles to a Third U.S. Presidential Term
Article:
A Historical Precedent and a Constitutional Wall
The political landscape in the United States is once again abuzz with discussions surrounding former President Donald Trump and the boundaries of presidential tenure. Mr. Trump, having served two non-consecutive terms, joins Grover Cleveland as only the second U.S. president to do so. However, recent remarks from the former president have ignited a debate about the possibility of an unprecedented third term, a move directly challenged by the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This amendment, ratified in 1951, explicitly states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” It was enacted in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms in office (1933-1945), a period before such a constitutional limitation existed. Since the amendment’s adoption, no individual has served more than two terms as president.
The Allure of a Third Term: Speculation and Statements
Despite this clear legal framework, Donald Trump has repeatedly alluded to the prospect of a third term, at times humorously and at other times more pointedly. In recent comments to reporters, he stated, “I would love to do it. I have my best numbers now.” Previously, in an interview, he acknowledged that “there are ways” it could be done, though he emphasized his current focus is on his new administration.
These statements have prompted political analysts and legal experts to examine what those “ways” might be and how feasible they truly are.
Pathway One: Amending the Constitution
The most direct, yet arguably most difficult, method would be to amend the Constitution itself. Supporters like Republican Congressman Andy Ogles have already proposed legislation that would allow individuals to serve three non-consecutive terms—a change that would immediately qualify Trump for a 2028 run.
However, legal experts widely dismiss this possibility. Retired judge Joseph Kazgrove described the chance of success as “almost impossible.” The amendment process requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures. Given the current narrow majorities held by Republicans and the deep political polarization in the country, achieving such a consensus is seen as unattainable. Furthermore, political journalist James Matthews expressed doubt that Trump could even muster unified support from his own MAGA movement for such a contentious change.
Pathway Two: A Legal Loophole?
A more theoretical workaround has been proposed by some supporters: Trump could run as a Vice-Presidential candidate, and upon victory, the elected President would resign, allowing Trump to assume the office. Some legal theorists argue that since the 22nd Amendment prohibits election to the office more than twice, but does not explicitly bar serving as president after two terms, this could be a viable, if highly unorthodox, path.
John Fortier, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, notes this argument exists but also highlights its critical flaw. He and other scholars contend that anyone in the presidential line of succession must be eligible for the presidency itself. Since the 22nd Amendment renders a two-term president ineligible for election, they would also be ineligible for the vice-presidency. Derek Muller, a professor of election law, firmly stated that “no strange trick” exists to circumvent the term limits, and any attempt would require “extraordinary acceptance” from all levels of government and the electorate.
Trump himself appears to have backed away from this idea, recently telling reporters that people “wouldn’t like it. It’s too cute. It’s not right.”
A Political Ploy or a Genuine Ambition?
The debate raises the question of whether this is a serious political goal or a strategic maneuver. Some analysts suggest that floating the idea of a third term is primarily a tool for Trump to maintain political relevance, demonstrate his enduring influence, and keep his base engaged.
Nevertheless, the discussion has drawn sharp criticism from political opponents. Democratic Representative Daniel Goldman, who served as lead counsel in Trump’s first impeachment, issued a statement calling the talk “another example of Trump’s blatant attempt to seize control of the government and undermine American democracy,” and urged Republicans to defend the Constitution by publicly opposing such ambitions.
As the U.S. political cycle continues, the conversation around presidential term limits underscores the enduring tension between political ambition and the constitutional guardrails designed to contain it.