After President Trump stated last year that he wanted to be a dictator for a day, he later claimed it was just a joke. Now, however, he’s suggesting he might try to cling to power even after being required by the Constitution to relinquish it, this time asserting he’s serious.
Whether he is joking or not remains unclear. Mr. Trump enjoys igniting controversy and provoking reactions from his critics. Discussions about an unconstitutional third term serve to divert attention from other pressing matters and postpone the moment when he is recognized as a lame duck. Indeed, many within his own party regard his statements as a joke, with Republican leaders dismissing it and White House staff mocking journalists for taking it too earnestly.
However, by introducing this idea into national discourse, Mr. Trump highlights the uncertainty surrounding the future of America’s constitutional framework, nearly two and a half centuries after independence. Now more than ever, a president’s dedication to the checks on power and the rule of law is being questioned, and critics worry the nation may be heading down a troubling path.
After all, Mr. Trump previously attempted to maintain power against the Constitution by trying to overturn the 2020 election results despite his loss. He subsequently called for the “termination” of the Constitution to reinstate himself without a new election. In the 11 weeks since he resumed office, he has expanded the limits of executive authority more than any of his modern counterparts.
“This appears to me to be the culmination of his consistent efforts to destabilize and undermine our democracy for the purpose of amassing greater power,” stated Representative Daniel Goldman, a Democrat from New York, and lead counsel during Mr. Trump’s initial impeachment, in a recent interview.
“Many aren’t discussing it because it’s not the most urgent issue of the day,” he commented during a time when the stock market was tumbling due to Mr. Trump’s newly announced trade war. However, he emphasized that the attack on democracy is already unfolding and should be recognized as no longer theoretical or speculative.
For Mr. Trump’s supporters, such rhetoric is viewed as exaggerated, a dramatic response from an opposition that cannot accept its electoral defeat. They argue that at 78, Mr. Trump is not genuinely pursuing a third term, and even if he circumvented the Constitution, it would ultimately be up to the electorate to decide his fate.
Although his supporters claim Mr. Trump is not earnest, he has a knack for presenting seemingly outrageous ideas, which he gradually normalizes through repetition until they are seen as less shocking. Once upon a time, it would have seemed inconceivable for a president to threaten to seize Greenland and Canada or to pardon those who stormed the Capitol to halt the transfer of power while assaulting law enforcement. Yet, under Trump’s leadership, the gulf between the unthinkable and reality has closed alarmingly fast.
Mr. Trump’s authoritarian inclinations and disregard for constitutional guidelines are well-documented. In this current term alone, he has sought to challenge birthright citizenship defined by the 14th Amendment, effectively taken control over financial decision-making normally reserved for Congress, purged military leadership to enforce greater personal loyalty, and silenced dissent across academia, the media, law, and the federal government.
The two-term limit that Mr. Trump ostensibly wishes to violate traces back to the early days of the republic when George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms, establishing a lasting precedent for successors.
Although a few of his predecessors, such as Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, contemplated breaking this custom, none acted upon it until Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, won a third term in 1940 amidst World War II, followed by a fourth term in 1944.
In reaction, with significant Republican backing, Congress ratified the 22nd Amendment, which asserts that “no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice,” a measure which states accepted in 1951.
Since that period, some presidents have expressed reconsideration regarding the term limit. Ronald Reagan indicated in 1987 he would favor repealing the 22nd Amendment, not for his own benefit, but for future presidents. Similarly, Bill Clinton expressed in 2003 that imposing restrictions on consecutive terms might be more appropriate, suggesting that “for future generations, the 22nd Amendment should be revised.”
Nonetheless, no president has attempted to bypass this limit for personal gain, and it remains unclear how Mr. Trump might proceed if he were to do so. Representative Andy Ogles, a Republican from Tennessee, has introduced a constitutional amendment that would permit a president who did not win two consecutive terms to run again. However, this remains a remote possibility, as amendments require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Due to this complexity, some of Trump’s allies deem advocacy for a third term pointless, just as they discourage opponents from fixating on it. “If Congress were to pass a constitutional amendment with the necessary approvals from the states, then he could run,” remarked former Speaker Newt Gingrich. “Absent that, it’s merely a conversation for social gatherings.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump seems to enjoy entertaining such discussions. While claiming, for now, “it’s far too early to consider this,” he recently told NBC News he was “not joking” about the possibility and asserted that “there are methods” to navigate around the constitutional constraint.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt would not provide further details on what these “methods” might entail, and currently, there is no indication that the administration is pursuing any. “He has four years ahead of him,” she told reporters. “There’s much work to accomplish.”
Some have posited that he could evade the term limit by running for vice president in 2028 alongside a compliant candidate who could then resign, allowing Mr. Trump to assume the presidency once more without breaching the two-term limit.
Scholar debate exists regarding whether the 12th Amendment would prohibit such a scenario since it states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.” Would Mr. Trump still be considered “eligible” for the presidency if he were barred from being elected again?
This discussion may seem technical and, to some, a mere distraction. “I don’t take Trump’s comments seriously regarding this,” asserted John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley and a former Justice Department official under President George W. Bush. “While there are some far-fetched scenarios in which he could serve another term, these ideas are more fitting for a subplot in a television show than real life.”
Even among critics of Mr. Trump, there is a sentiment that his comments on a third term should not dominate public discourse. “We face numerous legitimate threats to our constitutional framework that Trump and his allies are presenting, and that is where our focus should lie,” said Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution who specializes in democracy.
However, other legal experts argue that the mere mention of disregarding the law reveals Mr. Trump’s contempt for the Constitution. “The president is again taunting and belittling the American people while mocking the Constitution,” remarked J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal appeals judge.
The majority of Americans oppose Mr. Trump’s quest for a third term but don’t regard it as a joke either. A recent YouGov survey found that 60 percent oppose him running again, while 56 percent anticipate he will try to do so regardless.
Mr. Trump has hinted at the possibility of exceeding the limit since his first term. He has occasionally shown readiness to flout rules to hold onto power, such as in July 2020 when he proposed delaying the November election due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which prompted significant pushback from senior Republicans.
After his defeat to Joseph R. Biden Jr. in November, Mr. Trump pressured governors, state lawmakers, Congress, and his vice president to invalidate the election results so he could retain power, a plan that resulted in multiple indictments from federal and state prosecutors prior to the election last fall essentially rendering those cases moot.
Lucian Ahmad Way, the author alongside Steven Levitsky of “Revolution and Dictatorship: The Violent Origins of Durable Authoritarianism,” argued that Mr. Trump’s recent comments about disregarding the two-term limit must not be underestimated.
“I can only assume he is entirely serious and, provided his health remains stable, he will attempt to run for a third term,” stated Mr. Way, a political science professor at the University of Toronto. “Efforts to bypass term limits have been a significant feature of fully authoritarian and competitive authoritarian regimes in Belarus, Russia, and various African nations.”
Indeed, some of the world’s most infamous autocrats have successfully evaded constitutional provisions to remain in control—such as Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus (in power for 31 years), Vladimir V. Putin of Russia (25 years), and Xi Jinping of China (12 years), each of whom circumvented two-term limits.
According to a 2019 study, approximately one-third of the world’s sitting leaders who reach the conclusion of their constitutional terms will attempt to retain power, with that figure rising to half when excluding the most developed democracies. Among 234 incumbents in 106 countries studied, none explicitly bypassed their constitutions, but many sought to circumvent limits using supposed loopholes, innovative interpretations, or constitutional amendments.
Mila Versteeg, a law professor at the University of Virginia and the lead researcher on the study, stated that such leaders often attempt to cloak their power grabs in a facade of legality. “This is such a straightforward constitutional rule,” she asserted. “Four plus four equals eight, and anyone capable of counting recognizes that if you’re in year nine, you’re violating the Constitution.”
Certain Trump allies have proposed various ideas. Stephen K. Bannon, his former chief strategist, has posited that Mr. Trump should be eligible to run again because his two terms were not consecutive. Although the 22nd Amendment does not allow for this distinction, Mr. Goldman has introduced a resolution to reaffirm that the two-term limit applies whether or not the terms were consecutive.
Others have suggested that Mr. Trump could run and challenge the courts or states to remove him from the ballot. The Supreme Court has already dismissed attempts from several states to exclude Mr. Trump from the 2024 ballot under a 14th Amendment clause barring insurrectionists from public office. However, the term limits established by the 22nd Amendment are more defined, making it even less likely for Mr. Trump to persuade the justices.
At the extreme end of the concerns, some fear that Mr. Trump may simply refuse to vacate the presidency, a possibility not alleviated by his removal of senior military leaders. During his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, some advisers suggested declaring martial law to rerun elections in the states he lost, advice he ultimately chose not to follow, knowing that the military leadership would not support such a move.
The United States has a more robust democratic tradition than many other nations, and Ms. Versteeg expressed skepticism regarding Mr. Trump’s capacity to maintain power past January 20, 2029. Nonetheless, the inclination exists. “Many politicians relish their positions and seek avenues to retain them,” she noted. “That’s very, very common.”
