Ever since the 2024 election results rolled in, a certain question has been floating around Washington like a ghost that won't leave the room. People are whispering about it in coffee shops and shouting about it on cable news. Can he actually do it? I’m talking about Trump on running for third term possibilities. Honestly, it sounds like the plot of a political thriller, but for a lot of folks, it’s a very real conversation.
We’ve all seen the headlines. You’ve probably heard the chants of "four more years" at the rallies. But the reality is way more complicated than a catchy slogan. There's this huge wall standing in the way called the 22nd Amendment. Basically, it says you get two shots at being the President, and then you're done. No more.
The 22nd Amendment vs. The "Method"
Kinda crazy to think about, but before 1951, there wasn't a hard rule. George Washington set the "two terms and I'm out" vibe, and everyone just followed it because, well, he was Washington. Then FDR came along and won four times. Congress panicked a little. They didn't want a "President-for-life" situation, so they wrote the 22nd Amendment.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."
That’s the exact phrasing. It’s not exactly vague. But here is where things get weird. In March 2025, during an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker, Trump mentioned that "there are methods" to potentially serve longer. He wasn't joking. Or maybe he was? It’s hard to tell with him sometimes. But his allies, like Steve Bannon, have been way more vocal, suggesting that the 2028 election isn't necessarily off the table.
📖 Related: Trump New Gun Laws: What Most People Get Wrong
The Andy Ogles Proposal
Let’s look at some actual movement in the House. In January 2025, Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee actually introduced a resolution to change the rules. His idea? Allow a president to serve three terms, but only if the first two were non-consecutive.
It’s a very specific needle to thread.
Since Trump is the only living president who fits that description—serving as the 45th and 47th president—the amendment was clearly written with one person in mind. Critics call it a power grab. Supporters call it giving the people what they want. Either way, the math to pass a new amendment is basically a nightmare. You need two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, plus 38 states to say "yes." In today's political climate? Good luck with that.
Are There Any Loopholes?
Some legal nerds have pointed to the 12th Amendment. It says no person "constitutionally ineligible" to be President can be Vice President. But does "ineligible to be elected" mean the same thing as "ineligible to serve"?
👉 See also: Why Every Tornado Warning MN Now Live Alert Demands Your Immediate Attention
It’s the kind of logic that makes your head hurt.
- The VP Backdoor: Could Trump run as Vice President in 2028, and then the President resigns?
- The Speaker Strategy: Could he become Speaker of the House and move up the line of succession?
- The "War Powers" Theory: Some radical theories suggest a national emergency could suspend the rules. (Spoiler: Most constitutional experts say this is a hard no).
Honestly, the "VP Loophole" is the one that gets the most oxygen in law reviews. The argument is that the 22nd Amendment only stops you from being elected to the presidency. It doesn't explicitly say you can't hold the office if you get there through succession. But let’s be real: if this ever actually happened, the Supreme Court would be making a decision faster than you can say "constitutional crisis."
Why This Conversation Keeps Happening
It’s not just about the law. It’s about the energy. Trump has a way of testing the boundaries of what’s considered "normal" in politics. By even talking about Trump on running for third term options, he keeps his base energized and his opponents on high alert. It’s a classic branding move.
Historically, we've seen this before. Ronald Reagan once mentioned he thought the 22nd Amendment was a bad idea because it limited the people's choice. Bill Clinton echoed that sentiment later on. But talking about it and actually ripping up the rulebook are two very different things.
✨ Don't miss: Brian Walshe Trial Date: What Really Happened with the Verdict
What the Experts Say
I spoke with a few folks who live and breathe constitutional law. They're skeptical. To put it mildly. Bruce Peabody, a professor who has written extensively on this, notes that while the language has some tiny gaps, the "spirit of the law" is pretty ironclad. The American public generally likes term limits. It’s one of the few things people on both sides usually agree on.
What Happens Next?
If you're wondering if you'll see a Trump 2028 ticket, don't hold your breath for a legal miracle. But do expect the noise to get louder.
Actionable Insights for the Curious:
- Watch the State Legislatures: Any real move to change the 22nd Amendment starts and ends with the states. Keep an eye on red states like Florida or Texas to see if they pass resolutions supporting a change.
- Follow the Supreme Court Dockets: If a state tries to put him on a ballot for a third time, it will go straight to the top. Any case involving "ballot eligibility" is your early warning sign.
- Read the 12th vs. 22nd Debate: If you want to dive into the weeds, look up the "Gant and Peabody" law review articles. They lay out the succession loophole in a way that actually makes sense, even if it’s a long shot.
The reality is that the U.S. system is designed to be slow and resistant to big changes. That’s usually a good thing. But as we’ve learned over the last decade, "usually" doesn't mean "always."
To stay ahead of this story, monitor the progress of House Joint Resolution 27 or similar filings in the current Congress. These legislative attempts often signal how much internal party support actually exists for a term-limit overhaul versus how much is just political theater. Paying attention to the specific wording of these bills will tell you if they are aiming for a full repeal or a narrow, one-time exception.