How Trump Might Secure a Third Term — Despite the Constraints of the 22nd Amendment
An exploration of four potential scenarios in which Trump might maintain his influence beyond 2028.
TroibNews 
Less than two weeks have gone by since the recent presidential inauguration, yet it’s intriguing to think about the next one.
It’s January 20, 2029. The United States has experienced another turbulent four years under Donald Trump, leaving Democrats eager for the end of the Trump era while Republicans enjoy it.
Now, picture this scenario: The chief justice prepares to administer the oath of office. The next president lifts his right hand and declares:
“I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear…”
This scenario embodies both liberal anxieties and MAGA supporters’ dreams: a potential third Trump term.
But is that really possible? The Constitution clearly enforces a two-term limit on the presidency, even if those terms, like Trump’s, are non-consecutive. The 22nd Amendment states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”
Even someone as notorious as Trump, who frequently bends norms and breaks laws, couldn’t possibly evade such a straightforward constitutional limitation, right?
Don’t be so confident.
Globally, when leaders amass power through a cult of personality, they rarely relinquish it willingly, even in the face of constitutional constraints. And Trump has a history of attempting to remain in office beyond his legal term limits.
“Anyone who says that obviously the 22nd Amendment will deter Trump from trying for a third term has been living on a different planet than the one I’ve been living on,” remarks Ian Bassin, former associate White House counsel for President Barack Obama and current executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.
If Trump were determined to hold onto power past 2028, there are at least four paths he could pursue:
He could initiate a movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment outright. He might exploit a little-noticed loophole in the amendment allowing him to run for vice president and subsequently reclaim the presidency. He could again run for president, betting that a compliant Supreme Court won’t intervene. Or he might simply refuse to leave office, signaling an end to America’s democratic experiment. Each of these options would face significant political, legal, and practical hurdles. Nonetheless, the possibility of a third Trump term is not one to brush aside.
Indeed, Trump is not dismissing it. He has been teasing the idea for years.
In August 2020, he assured supporters: “We are going to win four more years. And then after that, we’ll go for another four years.”
In May 2024, he again floated the notion of a three-term presidency.
On November 13, 2024, just a week after securing a second term, he told House Republicans: “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say, ‘He’s so good we’ve got to figure something else out.’”
Most recently, he remarked: “It will be the greatest honor of my life to serve not once but twice — or three or four times,” quickly adding, “Nah, it will be to serve twice.”
Perhaps Trump is merely joking, or perhaps he’s playing the media. Regardless, the fact that he keeps mentioning it indicates he is seriously contemplating the possibility.
***Why Trump Might Do It***
Several fundamental objections to this scenario are not constitutional but rather physical and psychological: Would Trump, who would be 82 at the end of his second term, be healthy and capable of serving a third term? If yes, would he even desire one?
On January 20, 2029, he might choose to retire to Mar-a-Lago, having defeated all opponents and secured his legacy as a significant historical figure.
That’s a possibility. However, if he believes he can continue to govern, he might be strongly motivated to cling to the powers and privileges of the presidency.
Consider a primary reason he ran in 2024: to evade his legal troubles. This strategy proved effective; his victory effectively halted the two federal cases against him, in line with the Justice Department's traditional position that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. His election also jeopardized the faltering case against him in Georgia. In the New York hush money trial, the only one that resulted in a conviction, Trump emerged with “unconditional discharge” — an even lesser penalty than a slap on the wrist.
Still, he might not escape all his legal troubles by the end of his second term. Special counsel Jack Smith indicated that although he dismissed federal charges against Trump last month, he has reserved the right for a future Justice Department to revive these charges after Trump leaves office. If a Democrat appears poised to win the 2028 election, Trump could worry those charges would resurface.
Furthermore, there’s no telling what actions Trump might take in the next four years that could expose him to new criminal liabilities. The Supreme Court’s sweeping immunity decision last year could complicate any charges related to his presidency, but it would not eliminate the possibility. If robust calls for prosecution arise after his second term, it’s easy to envision him concluding that the safest course would be to simply remain in office.
Beyond using the presidency as a legal shield, he could be driven by a more fundamental desire: raw power. This is often the driving force for autocratic leaders worldwide, especially those that undermine democratic institutions.
“Presidents tend to enjoy their positions, and many have tried to extend their terms,” observes Mila Versteeg, a law professor at the University of Virginia.
Versteeg co-authored a 2020 study analyzing 234 heads of state across 106 countries in the 21st century. She discovered that one-third attempted to circumvent legally imposed term limits. Many succeeded — usually by exploiting gaps and weaknesses in constitutional frameworks or persuading compliant courts to endorse their consolidation of power.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan accomplished this in Turkey. Daniel Ortega did it in Nicaragua. Vladimir Putin did it in Russia. The list extends to leaders whom Trump admires.
“In countries where this occurs, the rule of law is considerably weaker than in the United States,” Versteeg notes. “However, we shouldn't see it as impossible or unimaginable. It has happened worldwide.”
***How Trump Might Do It***
Assuming Trump is intent on pursuing this path, could he succeed?
On the surface, the 22nd Amendment seems to block his way. Ratified in 1951 in response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms, no president had previously sought reelection after two terms — a norm established by George Washington.
Importantly, for Trump’s intentions, the amendment is not exclusive to consecutive terms. Virtually all constitutional scholars agree that the two-term limit applies to any two terms served by a single individual, even if not back-to-back.
However, that is not the end of the inquiry. The Constitution's rules are only as resilient as the institutions upholding them. Trump could undermine them or even attempt to defy them entirely through legal and extralegal measures. He has already sought to change aspects of the 14th Amendment relating to birthright citizenship. Is there any reason to believe he wouldn’t attempt a similar approach regarding the 22nd Amendment’s term limits?
Here are four potential tactics he could explore.
***Option 1: Change the Constitution***
The most straightforward approach would involve convincing Americans to repeal the 22nd Amendment’s two-term limit. This is entirely feasible; repealing an amendment has been done before, as with the 18th Amendment’s prohibition on alcohol.
However, a formal repeal would necessitate a significant level of popular support that seems implausible in our currently divided political landscape. Two-thirds of both congressional chambers would need to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the states would have to call for a constitutional convention. Subsequently, three-fourths of the states must ratify the proposed amendment. Even if Trump remains popular among Republicans, securing the required supermajorities appears unlikely.
Still, some conservatives are eager to pursue this goal.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Andy Ogles has already proposed a constitutional amendment aimed at allowing Trump to run for a third term. Additionally, The American Conservative laid the groundwork for this idea even before Trump won in 2024, publishing an article arguing that if he secured a second term, the 22nd Amendment should be repealed to enable him to seek a third.
“If, by 2028, voters feel Trump has done a poor job, they can pick another candidate; but if they feel he has delivered on his promises, why should they be denied the freedom to choose him once more?” wrote contributing editor Peter Tonguette.
Some Democrats are wary of this possibility. Rep. Dan Goldman of New York proposed a resolution last fall emphasizing that the 22nd Amendment applies to non-consecutive terms. A few blue states are even attempting to revoke their long-dormant requests for a constitutional convention, fearing Republicans could trigger one based on requests made decades or even centuries ago. Some allies of Trump in Congress, such as House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington of Texas, believe the requisite threshold for a convention has already been met.
While Trump has not explicitly backed the push for an amendment, he recently endorsed a social media post from Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The post praised his first week in office, noting, “People are already talking about changing the 22nd Amendment so he can serve a third term.”
***Option 2: Sidestep the Constitution***
If amending the two-term limit proves too challenging, Trump could look for a loophole. The 22nd Amendment includes a significant omission.
The text prohibits anyone from being “elected” to a third presidential term but doesn’t address the possibility of someone becoming president for a third term through other legal means — like being elected vice president and later ascending to the presidency via death, resignation, or removal of the president.
This technicality opens a cunning possibility. Envision that near the end of Trump’s second term, another individual — say, JD Vance — wins the Republican nomination for 2028. Vance chooses Trump as his running mate and promises to resign on Day 1, handing the presidency back to Trump.
The campaign slogan practically creates itself: “Vote Vance to Make Trump President Again.”
It may seem like a far-fetched scenario, but if Trump retains his hold over the Republican Party as he has in previous elections, it’s plausible this idea could gain traction. If Vance hesitates to agree, Trump can find another ally willing to comply.
The gamble carries risks for Trump. He must trust Vance or his chosen successor to fulfill the promise to step down immediately. Theoretically, this person could renegotiate after the election, opting to keep the presidency. But should the ticket run on a pledge that Trump would be the occupant of the Oval Office, pressure to maintain the commitment would be enormous. Moreover, if Vance or another politician seeks a future in the GOP and a legitimate shot at the White House, keeping Trump’s support would be crucial.
Trump, who thrives on public displays of loyalty, might find this situation appealing.
“It would not be surprising — if the president were interested in the presidency again — that he would seek to go down this path,” remarks Bruce Peabody, a law professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University.
Peabody discussed such possibilities long before Trump entered politics, concluding in a 1999 law review article that a twice-elected president could indeed serve in other high-ranking government roles, allowing for a return to the presidency.
This scenario could be likened to the “Putin-Medvedev” arrangement. When term limits prevented Putin from continuing to govern Russia in 2008, he served as “prime minister” while Dmitry Medvedev held the presidency. Of course, Putin continued to influence events, eventually regaining formal power.
In the U.S., another constitutional aspect complicates this loophole. The 12th Amendment states that anyone “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President.” If Trump were disqualified from serving a third presidential term under the 22nd Amendment, that would seemingly render him ineligible for the vice presidency as well — thus nullifying this loophole.
Yet, the 22nd Amendment does not explicitly state Trump would be ineligible to serve a third presidential term. It merely indicates he cannot run for that term. This interpretation leads some to conclude that the 12th Amendment’s eligibility stipulation does not prevent Trump from exploiting the loophole.
“You could make a case that it’s pretty clear that a twice-elected president is still eligible,” Peabody states. “However, one could argue that the matter isn’t straightforward. Nevertheless, I don’t find the argument convincing that it’s a certainty he isn’t eligible.”
***Option 3: Ignore the Constitution***
If the first two options prove too intricate or impractical, Trump might consider an even more audacious move: simply running for a third term and seeing whether anyone stops him.
Identifying who might intervene is surprisingly complicated. Would the Republican National Committee block him from seeking the party’s nomination for 2028? Unlikely, if he remains the dominant figure in the GOP. Would states reject him from appearing on their ballots? Some undoubtedly would, but that would lead to litigation. The matter would likely escalate to the Supreme Court — a body already sympathetic to Trump’s interests and likely to be stocked with even more of his appointees by then.
Still, would the Supreme Court truly endorse a blatant violation of the 22nd Amendment? Such a notion seems implausible now, even given the Court’s current conservative makeup. However, the political context during an election cycle could influence the Court’s deliberations.
Consider that it would be the height of the 2028 election season. Trump would be campaigning, presenting himself as a candidate operating in the nation’s best interest. The RNC would enthusiastically declare him their nominee. If his popularity remained high among half the electorate, the political cost of deeming him ineligible would be considerable for the justices.
“All you need is a court willing to serve as your faithful assistant,” Versteeg asserts, noting that while she finds it unlikely, a favorable ruling by the current court isn’t out of the question.
Bassin from Protect Democracy is even more straightforward in his assessment: “The court’s gonna tell the Republican Party that they can’t run their candidate? I don’t think so.”
This situation mirrors one previously encountered in the country and the court.
Many legal experts contend that Trump was constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 due to the 14th Amendment, which states anyone engaging in insurrection cannot hold federal office. However, when Colorado attempted to enforce that provision based on Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, and sought to remove him from its ballot, the Supreme Court intervened. They declared that only Congress, not individual states, has the ability to enforce the insurrection ban, despite the absence of any explicit limitation in the 14th Amendment.
This ruling was interpreted as at least partially results-driven: irrespective of legal arguments, the justices were unlikely to permit individual states to exclude the leading Republican candidate from their ballots. A similar calculus might apply should Trump attempt to run again in 2028.
One could counter that the 22nd Amendment’s directives are significantly clearer than the 14th’s vague language surrounding insurrections. However, litigation can obscure even the clearest language, and pro-Trump lawyers can create doubt about the two-term limit’s intentions.
They might discover some originalist argument contending that the two-term limit does not mean what it seems.
Perhaps they will argue that the amendment applies solely to consecutive terms. Trump ally Steve Bannon has already broached this suggestion.
Alternatively, they may claim some procedural flaw during the amendment’s ratification. Versteeg highlights that procedural arguments are often employed to undermine constitutional term limits overseas.
Or they may argue that another constitutional provision supersedes the 22nd Amendment’s term restriction. For example, they could claim that Trump has a due process right to run for the presidency or that voters have a due process right to choose their preferred candidate, irrespective of the 22nd Amendment.
Though none of these arguments holds strong legal validity, they can be introduced in court and public discourse to make the issue seem debatable. As legal scholar Jack Balkin has demonstrated, such processes can transform politically outlandish claims into accepted doctrines through the Supreme Court.
***Option 4: Defy the Constitution***
Finally, Trump could attempt to hold onto power without amending the Constitution or relying on the complicity of a vice presidential running mate. He might simply choose to refuse to vacate the office.
Predicting how this would unfold is difficult. A common maneuver in the autocrat’s arsenal is to declare a national emergency and cancel an election. While the president lacks legal authority to postpone elections, that would not prevent Trump from taking such an action, potentially leveraging a catastrophe or even initiating a conflict. He might also let the 2028 election proceed with other candidates but then declare the results fraudulent and insist on remaining in power.
It is easy to assert that Trump has intensified his anti-democratic inclinations in the early days of his new term. He has rapidly consolidated power across the government, implementing stringent loyalty mandates, dismissing independent federal watchdogs, and attempting to seize legislative spending authority. He has also condoned political violence associated with his supporters by granting pardons to individuals involved in the January 6 riots.
Four years ago, Trump’s effort to retain the presidency involved fabricating claims of election fraud to undermine the 2020 results, later encouraging his supporters to “go wild” in Washington as his loss was certified. Four years from now, could he pursue an even more audacious power grab? It’s a disturbing prospect. Scholars of authoritarianism often emphasize that when norms such as term limits falter, the decline is seldom abrupt — it often occurs gradually, frequently with the passive acceptance of governmental institutions.
On January 20, 2021, following multiple failed attempts to contest Joe Biden’s victory, Trump did depart from office. Power was transferred peacefully, and the nation’s democratic institutions endured.
Should he threaten the transfer of power in the future, there are no assurances that American democracy would withstand the strain again.
One thing is certain: the mere existence of the 22nd Amendment will not suffice to ensure continuity in democratic governance.
James del Carmen contributed to this report for TROIB News
It’s January 20, 2029. The United States has experienced another turbulent four years under Donald Trump, leaving Democrats eager for the end of the Trump era while Republicans enjoy it.
Now, picture this scenario: The chief justice prepares to administer the oath of office. The next president lifts his right hand and declares:
“I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear…”
This scenario embodies both liberal anxieties and MAGA supporters’ dreams: a potential third Trump term.
But is that really possible? The Constitution clearly enforces a two-term limit on the presidency, even if those terms, like Trump’s, are non-consecutive. The 22nd Amendment states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”
Even someone as notorious as Trump, who frequently bends norms and breaks laws, couldn’t possibly evade such a straightforward constitutional limitation, right?
Don’t be so confident.
Globally, when leaders amass power through a cult of personality, they rarely relinquish it willingly, even in the face of constitutional constraints. And Trump has a history of attempting to remain in office beyond his legal term limits.
“Anyone who says that obviously the 22nd Amendment will deter Trump from trying for a third term has been living on a different planet than the one I’ve been living on,” remarks Ian Bassin, former associate White House counsel for President Barack Obama and current executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.
If Trump were determined to hold onto power past 2028, there are at least four paths he could pursue:
He could initiate a movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment outright. He might exploit a little-noticed loophole in the amendment allowing him to run for vice president and subsequently reclaim the presidency. He could again run for president, betting that a compliant Supreme Court won’t intervene. Or he might simply refuse to leave office, signaling an end to America’s democratic experiment. Each of these options would face significant political, legal, and practical hurdles. Nonetheless, the possibility of a third Trump term is not one to brush aside.
Indeed, Trump is not dismissing it. He has been teasing the idea for years.
In August 2020, he assured supporters: “We are going to win four more years. And then after that, we’ll go for another four years.”
In May 2024, he again floated the notion of a three-term presidency.
On November 13, 2024, just a week after securing a second term, he told House Republicans: “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say, ‘He’s so good we’ve got to figure something else out.’”
Most recently, he remarked: “It will be the greatest honor of my life to serve not once but twice — or three or four times,” quickly adding, “Nah, it will be to serve twice.”
Perhaps Trump is merely joking, or perhaps he’s playing the media. Regardless, the fact that he keeps mentioning it indicates he is seriously contemplating the possibility.
***Why Trump Might Do It***
Several fundamental objections to this scenario are not constitutional but rather physical and psychological: Would Trump, who would be 82 at the end of his second term, be healthy and capable of serving a third term? If yes, would he even desire one?
On January 20, 2029, he might choose to retire to Mar-a-Lago, having defeated all opponents and secured his legacy as a significant historical figure.
That’s a possibility. However, if he believes he can continue to govern, he might be strongly motivated to cling to the powers and privileges of the presidency.
Consider a primary reason he ran in 2024: to evade his legal troubles. This strategy proved effective; his victory effectively halted the two federal cases against him, in line with the Justice Department's traditional position that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. His election also jeopardized the faltering case against him in Georgia. In the New York hush money trial, the only one that resulted in a conviction, Trump emerged with “unconditional discharge” — an even lesser penalty than a slap on the wrist.
Still, he might not escape all his legal troubles by the end of his second term. Special counsel Jack Smith indicated that although he dismissed federal charges against Trump last month, he has reserved the right for a future Justice Department to revive these charges after Trump leaves office. If a Democrat appears poised to win the 2028 election, Trump could worry those charges would resurface.
Furthermore, there’s no telling what actions Trump might take in the next four years that could expose him to new criminal liabilities. The Supreme Court’s sweeping immunity decision last year could complicate any charges related to his presidency, but it would not eliminate the possibility. If robust calls for prosecution arise after his second term, it’s easy to envision him concluding that the safest course would be to simply remain in office.
Beyond using the presidency as a legal shield, he could be driven by a more fundamental desire: raw power. This is often the driving force for autocratic leaders worldwide, especially those that undermine democratic institutions.
“Presidents tend to enjoy their positions, and many have tried to extend their terms,” observes Mila Versteeg, a law professor at the University of Virginia.
Versteeg co-authored a 2020 study analyzing 234 heads of state across 106 countries in the 21st century. She discovered that one-third attempted to circumvent legally imposed term limits. Many succeeded — usually by exploiting gaps and weaknesses in constitutional frameworks or persuading compliant courts to endorse their consolidation of power.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan accomplished this in Turkey. Daniel Ortega did it in Nicaragua. Vladimir Putin did it in Russia. The list extends to leaders whom Trump admires.
“In countries where this occurs, the rule of law is considerably weaker than in the United States,” Versteeg notes. “However, we shouldn't see it as impossible or unimaginable. It has happened worldwide.”
***How Trump Might Do It***
Assuming Trump is intent on pursuing this path, could he succeed?
On the surface, the 22nd Amendment seems to block his way. Ratified in 1951 in response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms, no president had previously sought reelection after two terms — a norm established by George Washington.
Importantly, for Trump’s intentions, the amendment is not exclusive to consecutive terms. Virtually all constitutional scholars agree that the two-term limit applies to any two terms served by a single individual, even if not back-to-back.
However, that is not the end of the inquiry. The Constitution's rules are only as resilient as the institutions upholding them. Trump could undermine them or even attempt to defy them entirely through legal and extralegal measures. He has already sought to change aspects of the 14th Amendment relating to birthright citizenship. Is there any reason to believe he wouldn’t attempt a similar approach regarding the 22nd Amendment’s term limits?
Here are four potential tactics he could explore.
***Option 1: Change the Constitution***
The most straightforward approach would involve convincing Americans to repeal the 22nd Amendment’s two-term limit. This is entirely feasible; repealing an amendment has been done before, as with the 18th Amendment’s prohibition on alcohol.
However, a formal repeal would necessitate a significant level of popular support that seems implausible in our currently divided political landscape. Two-thirds of both congressional chambers would need to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the states would have to call for a constitutional convention. Subsequently, three-fourths of the states must ratify the proposed amendment. Even if Trump remains popular among Republicans, securing the required supermajorities appears unlikely.
Still, some conservatives are eager to pursue this goal.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Andy Ogles has already proposed a constitutional amendment aimed at allowing Trump to run for a third term. Additionally, The American Conservative laid the groundwork for this idea even before Trump won in 2024, publishing an article arguing that if he secured a second term, the 22nd Amendment should be repealed to enable him to seek a third.
“If, by 2028, voters feel Trump has done a poor job, they can pick another candidate; but if they feel he has delivered on his promises, why should they be denied the freedom to choose him once more?” wrote contributing editor Peter Tonguette.
Some Democrats are wary of this possibility. Rep. Dan Goldman of New York proposed a resolution last fall emphasizing that the 22nd Amendment applies to non-consecutive terms. A few blue states are even attempting to revoke their long-dormant requests for a constitutional convention, fearing Republicans could trigger one based on requests made decades or even centuries ago. Some allies of Trump in Congress, such as House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington of Texas, believe the requisite threshold for a convention has already been met.
While Trump has not explicitly backed the push for an amendment, he recently endorsed a social media post from Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The post praised his first week in office, noting, “People are already talking about changing the 22nd Amendment so he can serve a third term.”
***Option 2: Sidestep the Constitution***
If amending the two-term limit proves too challenging, Trump could look for a loophole. The 22nd Amendment includes a significant omission.
The text prohibits anyone from being “elected” to a third presidential term but doesn’t address the possibility of someone becoming president for a third term through other legal means — like being elected vice president and later ascending to the presidency via death, resignation, or removal of the president.
This technicality opens a cunning possibility. Envision that near the end of Trump’s second term, another individual — say, JD Vance — wins the Republican nomination for 2028. Vance chooses Trump as his running mate and promises to resign on Day 1, handing the presidency back to Trump.
The campaign slogan practically creates itself: “Vote Vance to Make Trump President Again.”
It may seem like a far-fetched scenario, but if Trump retains his hold over the Republican Party as he has in previous elections, it’s plausible this idea could gain traction. If Vance hesitates to agree, Trump can find another ally willing to comply.
The gamble carries risks for Trump. He must trust Vance or his chosen successor to fulfill the promise to step down immediately. Theoretically, this person could renegotiate after the election, opting to keep the presidency. But should the ticket run on a pledge that Trump would be the occupant of the Oval Office, pressure to maintain the commitment would be enormous. Moreover, if Vance or another politician seeks a future in the GOP and a legitimate shot at the White House, keeping Trump’s support would be crucial.
Trump, who thrives on public displays of loyalty, might find this situation appealing.
“It would not be surprising — if the president were interested in the presidency again — that he would seek to go down this path,” remarks Bruce Peabody, a law professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University.
Peabody discussed such possibilities long before Trump entered politics, concluding in a 1999 law review article that a twice-elected president could indeed serve in other high-ranking government roles, allowing for a return to the presidency.
This scenario could be likened to the “Putin-Medvedev” arrangement. When term limits prevented Putin from continuing to govern Russia in 2008, he served as “prime minister” while Dmitry Medvedev held the presidency. Of course, Putin continued to influence events, eventually regaining formal power.
In the U.S., another constitutional aspect complicates this loophole. The 12th Amendment states that anyone “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President.” If Trump were disqualified from serving a third presidential term under the 22nd Amendment, that would seemingly render him ineligible for the vice presidency as well — thus nullifying this loophole.
Yet, the 22nd Amendment does not explicitly state Trump would be ineligible to serve a third presidential term. It merely indicates he cannot run for that term. This interpretation leads some to conclude that the 12th Amendment’s eligibility stipulation does not prevent Trump from exploiting the loophole.
“You could make a case that it’s pretty clear that a twice-elected president is still eligible,” Peabody states. “However, one could argue that the matter isn’t straightforward. Nevertheless, I don’t find the argument convincing that it’s a certainty he isn’t eligible.”
***Option 3: Ignore the Constitution***
If the first two options prove too intricate or impractical, Trump might consider an even more audacious move: simply running for a third term and seeing whether anyone stops him.
Identifying who might intervene is surprisingly complicated. Would the Republican National Committee block him from seeking the party’s nomination for 2028? Unlikely, if he remains the dominant figure in the GOP. Would states reject him from appearing on their ballots? Some undoubtedly would, but that would lead to litigation. The matter would likely escalate to the Supreme Court — a body already sympathetic to Trump’s interests and likely to be stocked with even more of his appointees by then.
Still, would the Supreme Court truly endorse a blatant violation of the 22nd Amendment? Such a notion seems implausible now, even given the Court’s current conservative makeup. However, the political context during an election cycle could influence the Court’s deliberations.
Consider that it would be the height of the 2028 election season. Trump would be campaigning, presenting himself as a candidate operating in the nation’s best interest. The RNC would enthusiastically declare him their nominee. If his popularity remained high among half the electorate, the political cost of deeming him ineligible would be considerable for the justices.
“All you need is a court willing to serve as your faithful assistant,” Versteeg asserts, noting that while she finds it unlikely, a favorable ruling by the current court isn’t out of the question.
Bassin from Protect Democracy is even more straightforward in his assessment: “The court’s gonna tell the Republican Party that they can’t run their candidate? I don’t think so.”
This situation mirrors one previously encountered in the country and the court.
Many legal experts contend that Trump was constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 due to the 14th Amendment, which states anyone engaging in insurrection cannot hold federal office. However, when Colorado attempted to enforce that provision based on Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, and sought to remove him from its ballot, the Supreme Court intervened. They declared that only Congress, not individual states, has the ability to enforce the insurrection ban, despite the absence of any explicit limitation in the 14th Amendment.
This ruling was interpreted as at least partially results-driven: irrespective of legal arguments, the justices were unlikely to permit individual states to exclude the leading Republican candidate from their ballots. A similar calculus might apply should Trump attempt to run again in 2028.
One could counter that the 22nd Amendment’s directives are significantly clearer than the 14th’s vague language surrounding insurrections. However, litigation can obscure even the clearest language, and pro-Trump lawyers can create doubt about the two-term limit’s intentions.
They might discover some originalist argument contending that the two-term limit does not mean what it seems.
Perhaps they will argue that the amendment applies solely to consecutive terms. Trump ally Steve Bannon has already broached this suggestion.
Alternatively, they may claim some procedural flaw during the amendment’s ratification. Versteeg highlights that procedural arguments are often employed to undermine constitutional term limits overseas.
Or they may argue that another constitutional provision supersedes the 22nd Amendment’s term restriction. For example, they could claim that Trump has a due process right to run for the presidency or that voters have a due process right to choose their preferred candidate, irrespective of the 22nd Amendment.
Though none of these arguments holds strong legal validity, they can be introduced in court and public discourse to make the issue seem debatable. As legal scholar Jack Balkin has demonstrated, such processes can transform politically outlandish claims into accepted doctrines through the Supreme Court.
***Option 4: Defy the Constitution***
Finally, Trump could attempt to hold onto power without amending the Constitution or relying on the complicity of a vice presidential running mate. He might simply choose to refuse to vacate the office.
Predicting how this would unfold is difficult. A common maneuver in the autocrat’s arsenal is to declare a national emergency and cancel an election. While the president lacks legal authority to postpone elections, that would not prevent Trump from taking such an action, potentially leveraging a catastrophe or even initiating a conflict. He might also let the 2028 election proceed with other candidates but then declare the results fraudulent and insist on remaining in power.
It is easy to assert that Trump has intensified his anti-democratic inclinations in the early days of his new term. He has rapidly consolidated power across the government, implementing stringent loyalty mandates, dismissing independent federal watchdogs, and attempting to seize legislative spending authority. He has also condoned political violence associated with his supporters by granting pardons to individuals involved in the January 6 riots.
Four years ago, Trump’s effort to retain the presidency involved fabricating claims of election fraud to undermine the 2020 results, later encouraging his supporters to “go wild” in Washington as his loss was certified. Four years from now, could he pursue an even more audacious power grab? It’s a disturbing prospect. Scholars of authoritarianism often emphasize that when norms such as term limits falter, the decline is seldom abrupt — it often occurs gradually, frequently with the passive acceptance of governmental institutions.
On January 20, 2021, following multiple failed attempts to contest Joe Biden’s victory, Trump did depart from office. Power was transferred peacefully, and the nation’s democratic institutions endured.
Should he threaten the transfer of power in the future, there are no assurances that American democracy would withstand the strain again.
One thing is certain: the mere existence of the 22nd Amendment will not suffice to ensure continuity in democratic governance.
James del Carmen contributed to this report for TROIB News
