Trump’s Third-Term Talk: A Political Weapon and a Threat to Constitutional Norms

Photo via The Guardian

***

Recently, the United States of America’s President Donald Trump has repeatedly brought up the idea of running for a third presidential term, sometimes jokingly and sometimes with unsettling seriousness. Despite the fact that running for a third presidential term is outright unconstitutional, Trump claims that this is something that he can achieve. The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” However, there are loopholes in this system, and there are two potential ways that Trump could exploit them. Trump’s remarks represent a calculated political strategy designed to consolidate power, maintain control, distract from ongoing political troubles, and test the resilience of American democracy and American institutions, all of which are a tool to keep the GOP in lockstep. For example, a Republican congressman considering challenging a Trump action may hold back if there is doubt that Trump will win a third term.

Following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented fourth term, breaking the two-term tradition that George Washington started, the 22nd Amendment was established in 1951. It echoed back to Thomas Jefferson who wrote in 1821, “should a President consent to be a candidate for a 3d. election, I trust he would be rejected on this demonstration of ambitious views.” George Washington’s decision to not seek a third term set a precedent for future presidents, and established a two-term tradition. Going off of this, Jefferson believed that a president who was willing to break this tradition was “power hungry,” and believed that Americans should not want such a person as president. Furthermore, Jefferson argued that without the two-term tradition in place, presidents may remain in office too long when they are too old, and in this case would not be able to govern effectively.

However, altering the 22nd Amendment and allowing for more than two presidential terms would require a two-thirds vote both in the House and the Senate and support from three-fourths of the fifty states. This is a tall order. However, there are other strategies and theories that have been floated to attempt to navigate around this. Potentially, Trump and his supporters could find a way to attempt a legal end-run around the Constitution. With Republicans controlling both the House and Senate, Trump could maintain power by endorsing a Republican candidate that he is close with and potentially become Speaker. In this case, if the president and vice president were to step down, Trump could secure the presidency through the line of succession. Could Trump also exploit some vagueness around whether the president could serve a third term since his two terms were not consecutive? While these ideas remain unlikely and difficult to achieve prima facie, they do not make it impossible. The 2028 election is a ways away, and there is ample time for this situation to be addressed… for better or worse. 

Trump’s pattern of disregarding democratic norms is not new. From refusing to concede the 2020 election to inciting an insurrection at the Capitol, Trump has made a career of testing the limits of American systems without explicitly breaking the law—at least not in ways that have led to disqualification (but that’s another article). His latest tactic—floating the possibility of a third term—is another instance of this pattern. It allows him to frame himself as a singular, indispensable leader while simultaneously portraying legal constraints as optional or open to reinterpretation. If there are “alternative facts,” as Trump ally Kellyanne Conway famously said, there thus can be alternative interpretations of the 22nd Amendment, can there not? Trump stated on X recently, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Trump believes that he is above the law—and the Supreme Court has given him good reason to think so.

While there is largely bipartisan consensus surrounding the idea that a third Trump term is not possible, some Republicans have argued that he should be able to run again. Republican Representative Andy Ogles from Tennessee has gone so far as to introduce a resolution in support of amending the constitution to allow for a third term for Trump. Other Republican Congressmen believe this exception for a third term should never be made for a president. This illustrates that Trump’s third-term discussion is playing a crucial role in maintaining his control and power over the Republican Party. By entertaining the idea of an extended presidency, he reinforces his narrative of “Long Live the King”—the idea that Trump truly believes that he is a king. This discourse discourages potential challengers within the Republican party and keeps it oriented around Trump rather than its traditional platform or principles. It sends a message to Republican lawmakers and voters alike: loyalty to Trump is paramount, even above adherence to constitutional norms. In doing so, Trump has cultivated a climate where questioning the legality or ethics of his proposals is viewed as disloyalty. The oath of office for Congress requires loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, not to Trump of the United States. But there seems to be some confusion over that as of late.

The implications of Trump’s rhetoric extend beyond his personal ambitions—they set a precedent for future leaders who might be tempted to test the limits of constitutional authority. When political figures blur the lines between lawful governance and authoritarian aspiration, they invite a slow erosion of democratic guardrails. The American public, lawmakers, institutions and courts must remain vigilant, rejecting unlawful overreach and recognizing and resisting the normalization of such dangerous ideas. Democracy is not undone all at once—it unravels. 

Americans must take such rhetoric seriously, even if the legal outcome seems predetermined. The Constitution is only as strong as the collective willingness to uphold it. If political leaders can suggest its irrelevance without consequence, the damage may not be visible immediately but it will be lasting. All empires fall, Arthur John Hubbard observed in his book, “The Fate of Empires.” Is the global dominance and democracy of the United States of America destined to follow the ill-fate of so many that came before it? Without a change in direction and acknowledgement of Trump’s rhetoric about a third term, perhaps the American experiment will run its course far sooner than imagined.

***

This article was edited by Alexa Davidson and Whitney Woodrow.