Trump keeps toying with a third term — even though the Constitution forbids it
WASHINGTON — A coterie of Donald Trump loyalists is in the early phase of a campaign to rewrite the Constitution so he can serve another term — an idea Trump has done nothing to discourage.
First as a candidate last year and since he took office, Trump has teased, stoked, nurtured, fed and, if nothing else, kept alive the improbable notion that he might run and serve one more time.
'Am I allowed to run again?' Trump said last month at a meeting with House Republicans in South Florida.
The Constitution is clear on that point: He's not. Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may be elected president more than twice. That rules out Trump.
'There is no argument whatsoever that President Trump can be elected to the office of president again,' J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal appeals court judge who was appointed to the bench by Republican President George H.W. Bush, said in an interview.
Diehard supporters are undeterred, hoping to overcome that not-so-small obstacle.
A poster displayed at the Conservative Political Action Conference outside Washington, D.C., over the weekend was captioned 'Third Term Project' and showed Trump in imperial Julius Caesar garb.
'For Trump 2028 ...And Beyond!' it read.
One of the organizers, Shane Trejo of Michigan, 37, said a goal is to persuade conservative Republicans to support the proposed constitutional amendment filed last month by a congressional ally of Trump, Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn.
Ogles' resolution calls for extending presidential term limits from eight years to 12, meaning that if Trump wins again, he could stay in office until January 2033, when he'd be 86 years old.
Steve Bannon, an avatar of the MAGA movement and a senior White House adviser in Trump's first term, fired up the conservative activists at CPAC when he said in a speech: 'We want Trump in '28. That's what they can't stand. A man like Trump comes along only once or twice in a country's history. We want Trump!'
And what does Trump want? When he met with House Republicans after he won the election in November, he told them: 'I suspect I won't be running again unless you say, 'He's so good we've got to figure something else out.''
That could be read as a joke or as an invitation to act. But it wasn't a hard no.
'We believe that if the public demands it, he will step forward and serve his third term,' Trejo said. 'This could be a real chance to not just change some rules via executive order. Executive orders can be undone very quickly. This could be a substantial way for Trump to change the future of the country for generations to come.'
The White House didn't respond to a request for comment on whether Trump wants to see Ogles' resolution pass.
Opinions differ about the seriousness of the prospect among GOP lawmakers and former advisers who've worked with Trump before. There's a strong view that he's simply trolling his critics — tormenting them by suggesting he's not going away.
This is, after all, America's self-appointed monarch. When his administration scrapped New York City's congestion pricing program, Trump declared on his social media platform: "Long live the king!" in capital letters.
Taking the cue, the White House's various social media accounts depicted him on a fake magazine cover wearing a bejeweled crown.
'President Trump joking about a third term is like a chef joking about putting a Michelin star on his own restaurant — obviously not happening, but fun to watch the critics lose their minds over it,' Brad Parscale, Trump's campaign manager in 2020, told NBC News.
Yet others believe that if the Constitution is somehow amended to permit a third term, Trump would take the leap.
'If there's a procedural way to accomplish it, he's likely very much considering it,' said Jenna Ellis, a 2020 Trump campaign attorney who is now a senior policy adviser for the American Family Association.
'That does take a constitutional amendment, but let's not forget that the Constitution was amended to impose term limits, and that can be undone,' Ellis added in an interview.
Two paths exist to amend the Constitution, both tortuous.
The more common one would require a two-thirds vote of Congress, followed by ratification from three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50).
Given the Republicans' slim majority in the House and the Senate and the polarized state of the electorate, clearing that threshold would seem out of the question.
'It would take this body to act, and I don't see this body acting,' Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said in an interview.
The other route hasn't been used to ratify any of the 27 constitutional amendments that have been approved since 1791, but it's one that Trump allies are mulling.
Consider it a way to bypass a deadlocked Congress. If two-thirds of the states (34 out of 50) agree, they may call a constitutional convention to propose amendments. But even then, three-quarters of the states would need to ratify any changes.
'The reason we have the fewest amendments of any comparable constitution is that it's almost impossible to amend the Constitution, because we can't get 34 to 38 states to agree. It's a very, very steep hurdle,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown Law.
Of the two paths, a constitutional convention might be the only realistic vehicle to potentially extend Trump's presidency. That's because of the states' partisan makeup. Figures tallied by the National Conference of State Legislatures show that 57% of those bodies are controlled by Republicans, only 37% by Democrats.
'This is not outside the scope of possibility,' Ellis said, 'which is why the conversation is so fascinating.'
Trump's motives in invoking a third term may be varied. At a minimum, talk of a third term may keep his political capital from dwindling.
No president wants to be thought of as a lame duck. If Trump can plant the idea that he might be in the White House into the next decade, he can retain the clout needed for Congress to enact his agenda.
'He rules Congress with fear, so if there's even a remote chance he could stay in power, they will stay in line,' said Michael DuHaime, a former Republican National Committee official.
When Fox News asked Trump this month whether Vice President JD Vance would be his heir apparent in 2028, he said no, added that it's "too early" to say and then quickly changed the subject. He didn't linger on the fact that he's serving a finite term with a beginning, a middle and an end.
Vance and those close to him rejected any suggestion that there was any sort of rift with the boss.
'I think he said exactly what he should have said, which is: 'It's too early,'' Vance said when he was asked about Trump's answer in an interview this week with the Daily Mail.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.
Sen. Lindsey Graham has pledged that his expansive sanctions bill would be 'bone crushing' for the Russian economy. But if enacted, the South Carolina Republican's proposal to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy would effectively cut the U.S. off from some of the world's largest economies — including allies in Europe. 'A 500 percent tariff is essentially a hard decoupling,' said Kevin Book, managing director of Clear View Energy Partners, an energy research firm. Graham appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday, when he proposed a broad carve-out for countries that provide aid to Ukraine. This exemption would spare the European Union, which continues to import almost 20 percent of its gas from Russia. But experts remain skeptical that the sky-high tariffs proposed in the Sanctioning Russia Act are in any way feasible. India and China buy roughly 70 percent of Russian energy exports, but several other countries that buy any oil, gas or uranium from Moscow — and aren't included in the carve-out — could also be exposed to tariffs under the bill. The United States, which is still reliant on imports of enriched uranium from Russia to fuel its nuclear reactors, could also run afoul of the bill. Edward Fishman, a senior researcher with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said countries in the crosshairs of the bill would struggle to halt their imports of Russian energy overnight. Tariffs of 500 percent on imports of goods made in China would send prices soaring, disrupt supply chains and could drive up U.S. unemployment to recessionary levels. Most likely, it would lead to a screeching halt in U.S. trade with China. 'It would hurt Americans quite a bit,' Fishman said. The legislation's goal, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is to starve Russia's war economy, which continues to earn hundreds of billions of dollars from energy exports. There is widespread support for the overall objective, with 82 senators signing on to Graham's bill so far, and growing support for a companion bill in the House. The bill is likely to change significantly as it moves through Congress and in consultations with the Trump administration, said Matt Zweig, senior policy director of FDD Action, a nonprofit advocacy organization affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It may also take a long time. 'With sanctions legislation, you're also normally dealing with iterative processes where you would want to go through every nook and cranny,' Zweig said. Still, the widespread bipartisan support for the legislation suggests there is a high degree of support among lawmakers for tougher action on Russia. 'What Congress may be doing is pressuring the executive branch to act,' said Adam Smith, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn. 'There is a sense in the Senate that more sanctions on Russia need to be imposed, or ought to be imposed,' added Smith, who was a senior adviser to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control during the Obama administration. Graham, the bill's most vocal Republican advocate, said as much in a meeting with reporters in Paris over the weekend, where he described the bill as 'one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written.' 'The Senate is pissed that Russia is playing a game at our expense and the world's expense. And we are willing to do something we haven't been willing to do before — and that is go after people that have been helping Putin,' Graham said. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed concerns that the bill is too harsh. 'We need to make Putin understand he has to stop screwing around and come to the table. But we also need to follow it up and make clear we will be tough,' she said. Not everyone agrees. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long been skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions to change the behavior of U.S. adversaries, bashed the bill on Monday as 'literally the most ill-conceived bill I've ever seen in Washington,' he said. 'It would be a worldwide embargo on 36 countries.' Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have made little progress on peace talks. Officials from both countries met in Istanbul on Monday and agreed to a further prisoner swap, but failed to achieve any major breakthroughs. Graham and Blumenthal visited Ukraine, France and Germany during last week's congressional recess, where they discussed the sanctions bill, as well as efforts to push Russia to the negotiating table. The proposal has been welcomed by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, who met with Graham in Berlin on Monday. 'Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else,' Von der Leyen said in a statement. 'These steps, taken together with U.S. measures, would sharply increase the joint impact of our sanctions.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Monday that the chamber could take up the legislation later this month. Republican senators have said they would like to secure the approval of the White House before moving forward. The proposed use of blanket tariffs to target countries that continue to do business with Russia's energy sector is novel and appears to be pitched to Trump's interests. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump viewed sanctions as 'a tool in his toolbox,' but declined to comment about his position on the bill. Trump appeared to be inching closer toward supporting the bill in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, which linked to an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting the legislation. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump indicated he wanted lawmakers to secure his approval before moving forward with the bill. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do,' he said, describing the legislation as a 'harsh bill.' The president has liberally wielded tariffs to advance his foreign policy agenda, but his implementation has been spotty. Wall Street has even adopted a trading strategy referencing Trump's capriciousness called TACO, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' Tariffs of 145 percent on China, imposed in April, lasted a month before being dramatically scaled back to make way for trade talks, which have so far failed to secure a breakthrough. As it stands, the bill includes some levers that Trump could pull to forestall the tariffs, requiring the president to make a formal determination that Russia is refusing to negotiate or has violated any future peace agreement. Nahal Toosi, Joshua Berlinger, Phelim Kine and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS
Even by the standards of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's relationship -- an unprecedented alliance punctuated by a meme-inspired reshaping of the government, numerous rocket launches, assassination attempts, a quarter-billion-dollar political gamble and electric car photo-ops -- it's been an unusual week. For months, Musk had been the closest of Trump's advisers -- even living at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and spending time with the president's family. More recently, Trump gave Musk a congratulatory Oval Office sendoff from his work leading cost-cutting efforts in his administration, giving him a golden key with a White House insignia. But the billionaire's muted criticisms of Trump's "big, beautiful bill" grew louder and more pointed, culminating in posts Thursday on his social media platform taking credit for Trump's November win and Republicans' takeover of the Senate. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted. "Such ingratitude." Some lawmakers and Republicans worry Musk's apparent acrimonious departure from Trump's orbit could create new uncertainties for the party -- and stoke GOP divisions that would not serve Republicans well heading into a critical legislative stretch before the midterm elections. The back-and-forth attacks, which continued into the weekend and took a sharply personal turn, reverberated across a capital they have both reshaped. Trump on Friday told several reporters over the phone that he was not thinking about Musk and told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk had "lost his mind." In the near term, Trump and the GOP are trying to muscle their signature tax and domestic policy megabill through the House and Senate, with the slimmest of margins and no shortage of disagreements. MORE: Speaker Johnson tries to protect fate of megabill from Trump-Musk crossfire Any shift on the key issues could topple the high-wire act needed to please House and Senate Republicans. A nonstop torrent of criticism from Musk's social media megaphone could collapse negotiations, harden the position of the bill's critics and even undermine other pieces of Trump's first-term agenda. "You hate seeing division and chaos," Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who represents a swing district, told ABC News about the Trump-Musk fracas. "It's not helpful." Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, called Musk a "credible voice" on "debt and spending" issues. "It's never helpful when he says those things. He's a believable person and he has a broad reach, but I think he's frustrated and people understand the context," Arrington said, predicting that both men will eventually resolve their dispute. Republican operatives watching the spat unfold this week told ABC News it is too early to say how the feud between Trump and Musk could affect the next election. The billionaire spent more than anyone else on the last election, pouring $270 million into groups boosting Trump and other Republicans up and down the ballot, according to Federal Election Commission filings. MORE: Trump-Musk feud leaves some DOGE staffers worried about their futures: Sources He already suggested he would cut back on his political donations next cycle, more than a year out from the midterm elections. In the final stretch of the 2024 race, he relocated to Pennsylvania, hosting town halls and bankrolling his own get-out-the-vote effort in the critical swing state. Since his foray into Washington, Musk has become a deeply polarizing and unpopular figure, while the president's approval rating has ticked up in some recent surveys. Groups affiliated with Musk spent $20 million this spring on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, only for the liberal candidate to win -- signaling to some Republicans the limits of Musk's political pull. While his support may be missed by Republicans next cycle, Trump has continued to raise millions of dollars to support his future political plans, a remarkable sum for a term-limited president that underscores his central role in the party and undisputed kingmaker status. MORE: Trump tells ABC Musk 'lost his mind,' as CEO's dad says 'make sure this fizzles out' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is mulling a gubernatorial bid in 2026, downplayed the tensions or political implications, suggesting that reporters "spend way more time worrying about these things than most average people." "I'm sure they will make peace," Lawler told ABC News on Friday. There were some signs of a détente. While Musk continued to hurl insults at Trump ally and critic Steve Bannon, his social media activity appeared to cool off on Friday, and the billionaire said one supporter was "not wrong" for saying Trump and Musk are "much stronger together than apart." Through nearly a decade in politics and three campaigns for the White House, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to move past disputes or disagreements with many intraparty rivals and onetime critics, including some who now serve in his Cabinet. Now, some Republicans left Washington this week asking themselves if Musk is willing to do the same. Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS originally appeared on
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DOGE caucus leader says Elon Musk made a 'massive exaggeration' about spending cuts
A key DOGE-minded lawmaker in Congress calling out Elon Musk amid his feud with Trump. "Most everybody knew Elon was exaggerating to what he could do," said Rep. Blake Moore of Utah. He also said Musk was "parroting false claims" about the "Big Beautiful Bill." Shortly after the feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk hit its apex on Thursday, a key DOGE-minded lawmaker in Congress had some pointed words about the world's richest man. "Most everybody knew Elon was exaggerating to what he could do," Republican Rep. Blake Moore of Utah told reporters outside the Capitol. "He was claiming finding $4 billion a day in cuts he was going to get. One time, he said $2 trillion, he was going to find." "It's a massive exaggeration, and I think people are recognizing that now," Moore said. The Utah Republican is one of the three co-leaders of the House DOGE caucus, a bipartisan group of lawmakers who had hoped to support Musk's cost-cutting efforts. The caucus met a handful of times at the beginning of the year, and leaders previously told BI that they intended to compile a report of potential cost-saving measures for DOGE at the end of the first quarter of this year. That didn't end up happening, in part because the White House DOGE Office ultimately had little interaction with the caucus. One Democratic member declared the group to be "dead" last month. "We've always been a little frustrated that there was such limited interaction," Moore said on Thursday. "We couldn't really identify where we were to lean in, and we had a ton of folks ready to support it, but there just wasn't that interaction." Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Moore said that he wanted to pursue cuts to federal spending through the bipartisan government funding process, saying that there are "plenty of Democrats that recognize there's waste in our government." GOP leaders have said they'll pursue DOGE cuts both through that process and through "rescission" packages, the first of which is set to be voted on in the House next week. The first package, which includes cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid, is $9.4 billion, just a fraction of the cost savings that Musk once predicted. "It's definitely kind of over-promising, under-delivering," Moore said. Musk's public feud with Trump began last week, when the tech titan began criticizing the "Big Beautiful Bill" that Republicans are trying to muscle through Congress. The bill is projected to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, though Republicans have argued that those forecasts do not account for the economic growth that might be spurred by the bill. That feud boiled over on Tuesday, with the two men engaging in a war of words on their respective social media platforms. "When I saw Musk start posting, just parroting false claims about the tax reconciliation bill, it was clear something's amiss," Moore said. "And so it escalated, yeah. It escalated very quickly." Read the original article on Business Insider