When Steve Bannon, former chief strategist for Donald Trump, declared last week, “I’m a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028,” it should have raised eyebrows, but it didn’t. “We’re working on it. … We’ll see what the definition of term limit is,” the scruffy Bannon told NewsNation. This wasn’t his first reference to the possibility. Back in December, the president’s advisor, who was imprisoned for declining to testify about the January 6 insurrection, had floated the idea, arguing Trump could sidestep the 22nd amendment—which enforces a two-term limit—since the term “consecutive” is absent from the text.
Trump has also been vocal about his intentions. In a recent NBC interview, he asserted that he was “not joking” about pursuing a third term, suggesting there are “methods” that could allow him to bypass the constitutional restriction on presidential terms.
He’s indicated this before. Shortly after his victory in November, he told congressional Republicans, “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say, ‘He’s so good we’ve got to figure something else out.’”
Later, during January’s House Republican retreat in Florida, he jokingly asked Speaker Mike Johnson: “Am I allowed to run again, Mike?” In February, before supporters at the White House, he inquired, “Should I run again? You tell me.” These casual comments regarding a third term may seem like idle chatter but could outline a potential plan.
The two-term presidential limit was established as a direct response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency during the 1930s and 1940s. Before Roosevelt, every president had adhered to the informal precedent set by George Washington, stepping down after two terms. The 22nd amendment is unambiguous: “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
This year, Republican Congressman Andy Ogles introduced a resolution to amend the 22nd amendment to allow a president to serve up to three terms. Ogles stated: “President Trump’s decisive leadership stands in stark contrast to the chaos, suffering, and economic decline Americans have endured over the past four years.”
“He has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal. To that end, I am proposing an amendment to the constitution to revise the limitations imposed by the 22nd amendment on presidential terms. This amendment would allow Trump to serve three terms, ensuring that we can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs.”
Constitutional law professor Michele Goodwin wouldn’t be surprised if Trump attempted to seek a third term through any means necessary: “There has already been a display of lawlessness in the executive orders and other actions taken by the Trump administration,” she states.
Goodwin, a Georgetown Law professor, points out that Trump is making history in ways that are anti-democratic and unconstitutional. “For instance, when the president expresses a desire to eliminate birthright citizenship, he cannot do so with a mere stroke of his pen—it is protected in the American constitution. The way people with green cards have been kidnapped and concealed, along with mass deportations—these situations have been mischaracterized, as these are individuals legally seeking refugee or immigration status. The absence of a green card does not equate to being outside appropriate legal processes.”
Birthright citizenship is safeguarded by the 14th amendment, and courts have temporarily blocked its removal. A judge appointed by Ronald Reagan issued an emergency order initially prohibiting Trump’s executive order, stating, “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t recall another case where the question presented was as clear.”
While other legal scholars have deemed a third-term run unattainable, Trump’s staunch supporters often disregard constitutional obstacles. In fact, the mere speculation of extending his hold on power has already reinvigorated his base.
Political opposition appears minimal. Robert Reich, who was labor secretary under President Bill Clinton and served in the Ford and Carter administrations, headlined a recent Substack post with: Where the HELL are the Democrats? “This should be the Democrats’ moment,” he argued, “Yet, they’re nowhere … Almost invisible. They’re squandering this opportunity.” Reich asserts that some Democratic operatives advise their fellows to “play dead” and to give the Trump administration and supportive congressional Republicans “enough rope to figuratively hang themselves.” With midterm elections not scheduled until November 2026, the advice is to bide one’s time. “Rubbish,” counters Reich. “Tens of millions of Americans believe there’s no genuine Democratic opposition to Trump, making them feel demoralized and defeated.”
Goodwin points out that the Trump administration is exerting coercion in legal spaces. Universities face pressure to modify their curricula (for instance, Columbia University is placing its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies departments into “academic receivership” under the insistence of the Trump administration), and recently vice president JD Vance has been appointed to oversee the “removal of improper ideology” from the National Museum of African American History and Culture, part of the Smithsonian Institute.
Whether it’s a threat to law schools or banning major law firms that have represented Trump’s “enemies” from receiving government contracts, as of this month, 60 universities are “under investigation” by Trump’s Department of Education for “antisemitic discrimination and harassment.”
“When individuals feel threatened, as some do,” Goodwin states, “they tend to make unnecessary concessions.” Historically, we could depend on an unbiased judiciary to address such matters, but even successful lawsuits seem to lack weight against the current administration. “Now, we observe a certain level of defiance from the Trump administration, which presents complications.”
A house set aflame can be decimated in no time … This dismantling, the firing of people, the gutting of various institutions, may take decades in some instances to rebuild and to restore.
Michele Goodwin
Law professors are on edge, according to her. “In the early days of his presidency, many in the legal profession recognized that there had already been enough unconstitutional executive orders to indicate a democratic crisis.” With aid from his ally Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency, Trump is also trying to dismantle agencies established by Congress, placing 4,200 staff at the Agency for International Development on leave in February and terminating 1,600 from their positions. Lawyers believed Congress could intervene but that evidently did not occur. “People are right to feel apprehensive,” she claims.
Goodwin stresses, “The challenge lies in the fact that it’s far simpler to destroy than to create. A house set aflame can be destroyed instantly. It’s not solely about reconstructing the physical structure; it’s about the character. It’s remembering how individuals respected one another and collaborated. This dismantling, the terminations, the stripping of various institutions could take decades to rebuild and restore. This will demand a firm commitment from our government at a time when it faces economic distress.”
She suggests that the U.S. is currently undergoing a “thought experiment.” Goodwin recalls Bannon’s mention of “flooding the zone.” In a conversation with writer Michael Lewis in 2018, he indicated, “The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the strategy to counter them is to flood the zone with s***.”
Goodwin believes there’s a psychological aspect at play. “One analogy that comes to mind is domestic violence. In an environment where an individual is drowning others in physical and psychological abuse – employing various coercive tactics so that when they come home at night, you never know what to anticipate – it’s destabilizing; it incites fear; it overwhelms people. This overwhelming nature creates a desired effect. [What Trump is doing] intends to destabilize individuals; it aims to induce a sense of paralysis. People become so inundated that they lose clarity about what to focus on or how to proceed.”
While Goodwin characterizes the current situation as “dystopic,” she sees potential assistance coming from an unexpected source—the Supreme Court. Recently, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both nominated by Trump during his first term, sided with the court’s liberal wing in blocking the administration’s attempt to freeze $2 billion meant for foreign aid organizations for work already performed. Subsequently, alt-right activist Jack Posobiec labeled Barrett as a DEI hire.
Initially, some feared that the Supreme Court’s shift to the right, coupled with its contentious ruling asserting presidential immunity from criminal actions undertaken in office, would give Trump unfettered power to trample constitutional boundaries. However, in mid-March, Roberts again opposed Trump’s calls for the removal of a judge in an extraordinary manifestation of conflict between the executive and judicial branches, according to the Associated Press.
In a democracy under attack, the Supreme Court stands as the last bastion of protection. The pressing question is whether, considering its current makeup, it will be able to withstand the mounting assaults. Or, by the time the third-term campaign rolls around, will so much have been destroyed that the public forgets how to respond—or even where to find their means of resistance?
