logo
What to know about the possibility of Trump serving a third term

What to know about the possibility of Trump serving a third term

The Hill10-02-2025
Murmurs from President Trump and his allies have stirred up questions of the incumbent possibly seeking a third term in office, even as he's currently constitutionally barred from doing so.
Trump has remarked on a few occasions since being sworn in for a second term that he wouldn't be running again unless people insist and decide to 'figure it out.' And Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) has even introduced a constitutional amendment that would specifically allow Trump to run for another term but not any of his two-term predecessors.
These efforts, which aren't entirely unheard of in recent history, would require a number of steps that make a third Trump term a considerable long shot.
Here's what you need to know:
Not completely without precedent
Most presidents followed George Washington's tradition of not running for more than two terms. A few attempted a third term, but none were successful until former President Franklin Roosevelt won four terms amid the crises of the Great Depression and World War II.
After Republicans won control of Congress in 1946, they almost immediately introduced a resolution to limit the president's time in office. Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University who has studied the 22nd Amendment, said Democrats at the time weren't 'crazy about it,' but they didn't stop it and many supported it.
Once ratified, the amendment declared, 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.' Presidents could also serve up to two years of a term that someone else was elected to and be elected to two additional terms, for a total of up to 10 years in office.
But the amendment has received some criticism since its ratification in 1951, and a few have called for repealing it.
Kalt said former President Eisenhower was so popular that some called for him to be able to serve a third term, but Eisenhower wasn't interested. In 1986, then-Rep. Guy Vander Jagt (R-Mich.) called for amending the Constitution to allow then-President Reagan to serve a third term.
'Ronald Reagan is one of the greatest American Presidents of all time, and I want to keep him on the job,' he wrote at the time.
Both Reagan and former President Clinton raised the idea of changing the amendment, with Clinton saying the limit should maybe be two consecutive terms, but both were speaking generally for the future and not referring to themselves.
Trump takes it to a new level
Even though the proposals aren't entirely new, Trump has taken them to a new level in reference to his political future and isn't letting them go.
'The thing that's different about Trump is that in the past, the president would always be very demure about it,' Kalt said. 'They sort of take the approach of letting other people say that and keeping their hands up. That's not Trump's style. So obviously that's not the tone that he took in his recent remarks.'
Trump has discussed the possibility of a third term multiple times before and after being sworn in last month. In November, he said in comments to House Republicans: 'I suspect I won't be running again, unless you do something. Unless you say, 'He's so good, we have to just figure it out.''
Multiple Republicans said Trump was joking.
Trump said it again a week into office at the House GOP's annual policy retreat, saying he wasn't sure if he was allowed to run again and asking Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) if he could. Some again said he was joking, but Ogles introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution days earlier.
The amendment would allow Trump to run again because he was elected to nonconsecutive terms but prevent anyone from being elected to more than three terms overall or two consecutive terms.
'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,' Ogles said.
Convoluted process under current laws
While the 22nd Amendment precludes running for a third term, some arguable if unlikely loopholes exist, Kalt said.
The amendment clearly prevents being elected a third time, it doesn't state that someone can't be president a third time, though that doesn't mean it's allowed.
'This really gets to the heart of people's different views of how to interpret the Constitution because the loophole only emerges if you're really strictly limiting yourself to the text,' Kalt said. 'If you're saying, well, what's the point of the 22nd Amendment? What is it trying to accomplish? What it's trying to accomplish is, if you have two terms, then you leave and that's it.'
What's unsettled is if someone who has served two terms can be elected vice president, or a position lower down in the presidential line of succession and ascend to the presidency. The 12th Amendment states that no one ineligible to be president can serve as vice president, but it's arguable whether that applies to term limits, which were enacted later, or only the other constitutional qualifications like age.
'One thing is that no one has ever tried this… because it was part of our constitutional norms,' said Victoria Nourse, a law professor at Georgetown University who worked at the White House and Justice Department, about seeking a third term despite the 22nd.
'They're calling into question all sorts of things that no one has paid attention to for a very long time.'
Bar for passing constitutional amendment is high
If Ogles is serious and his resolution gains some momentum, the chances of this likely highly controversial amendment, or even less controversial ones, passing seem slim to none.
The Constitution places a high bar for passing an amendment, and it seems even more difficult in these highly polarized times. A resolution first must pass with two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, and then three-quarters of all state legislatures, equal to 38 states, must ratify it.
A post from the Constitution Center from last month noted just how difficult and rare passing an amendment is, intentionally so. Since the 27th Amendment was ratified in 1992, more than 1,400 have been proposed in Congress, but none has received the two-thirds vote to go to the states, the post said.
But Nourse argued that Trump's words should still be taken seriously regardless of the low chances of this coming to fruition.
'What happens is it takes it from the crazy off the wall to on the wall,' she said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Exclusive-Lula plans new 'national sovereignty' policy for strategic minerals
Exclusive-Lula plans new 'national sovereignty' policy for strategic minerals

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Exclusive-Lula plans new 'national sovereignty' policy for strategic minerals

By Brad Haynes and Lisandra Paraguassu BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Reuters on Wednesday of his plans for a new national policy treating strategic minerals as a matter of "national sovereignty" in order to avoid exporting minerals without adding value locally. "We won't allow what happened in the last century to happen again, where Brazil exports raw minerals and then buys products with very high added value," the president, known as Lula, said in the interview. "We want to add value in Brazil." Lula's comments came as a new 50% tariff hit U.S. imports from Brazil amid a political spat between the two countries linked to an investigation against the South American country's former president, Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro, under house arrest since late Monday, is standing trial on charges of plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral defeat. Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing. U.S. President Donald Trump, seen as a Bolsonaro ally, has decried what he calls persecution of Brazil's former leader. Trump has long sought to secure U.S. supplies of critical minerals, complaining of China's near-total control of the industry and striking deals with Ukraine to secure critical minerals in exchange for defense help. Currently, Brazil lacks a complete mapping of its mineral wealth, Lula said, adding that his government would start this process by setting up the national council on mineral materials and standards. The council will safeguard Brazil's control of its mineral wealth, allowing the country to become a global leader in the energy transition, Lula said, adding that businesses will not face difficulties following the council's creation. "Few countries in the world have the opportunity that Brazil has in this area," Lula said. Sign in to access your portfolio

You'll need more than luck in the Visa Lottery: Trump administration wants to change the rules
You'll need more than luck in the Visa Lottery: Trump administration wants to change the rules

Miami Herald

time19 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

You'll need more than luck in the Visa Lottery: Trump administration wants to change the rules

The rules for the popular Diversity Visa Lottery — which allows thousands of people each year to legally immigrate to the United States and apply for a green card — could soon change under a new proposal from the U.S. Department of State. The proposed measures, published Tuesday in the Federal Register, are aligned with several immigration and national security policies reinstated under the Trump administration. Officially known as the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) Program, the initiative is now under review to improve 'vetting and combatting fraud.' The Department of State's proposal would increase screening for applicants to the program, whose immigrant visas are granted through a computerized lottery. The agency is seeking to require DV applicants to submit 'valid, unexpired passport information and a scanned copy of the passport biographic page and signature page uploaded with their electronic entry form.' Another change would involve replacing the term 'gender' with 'sex,' in compliance with Executive Order 14168, as well as using 'date of birth' instead of 'age' in an effort to improve 'the accuracy of information collected and maintained by the Department throughout the immigrant visa process.' The DV Program is administered by the Department of State and benefits countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S.: specifically, nationals of countries from which fewer than 50,000 people have immigrated to the U.S. over the past five years. According to official data, millions of applicants submit their DV entries every year through an online registration form. The Department of State says the proposed requirements would strengthen the security framework against fraud in the DV application and adjudication process. 'Requiring passport information with the DV entry would make it substantially more difficult for unauthorized third parties to submit entries on behalf of individuals with partial information,' the rule states. 'This requirement would also enable the Department to more effectively and efficiently confirm the identities of entrants. The Department also anticipates that this requirement would reduce the number of fraudulent marriages that occur within the DV Program.' Early identification of potential fraud would reduce the need to dedicate 'significant resources' to resolving inconsistencies between the DV entry and the visa application, and to 'determine whether the explanation provided by the applicant is credible or whether the entry was fraudulent.' Each year, 55,000 Diversity Visas are made available to those who meet eligibility criteria and qualify under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and State Department regulations. The proposal includes amending certain visa application forms to require 'a passport number or unique identification number associated with the applicant's valid, unexpired passport; the name on the passport; the country or authority that issued the passport; and the expiration date of the passport.' Additionally, DV applicants would be required to submit a scanned image of the passport's biographic and signature pages. This would, according to the proposal, 'significantly enhance' the department's ability to verify applicants' identities — part of the response to Trump's Executive Order 14161, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, issued on January 20, 2025. With access to a scanned passport image, the department 'seeks to reduce the likelihood of a falsified passport number' and enable adjudicators 'to compare the spelling of the principal entrant's name in the native alphabet on the passport with the spelling of the entrant's name in English as provided on the entry form.' Under the new rules, some applicants would need to obtain a valid passport at the time of submitting their DV entry, rather than after being selected for an interview at a consular office or embassy. The proposed rule is open to public comment for 44 days and is scheduled to close on September 19, 2025.

Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats

San Francisco Chronicle​

time19 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats

Stanford's student newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday for threatening to deport any noncitizen who criticizes Israel or U.S. foreign policy, saying the government is violating freedom of speech and intimidating campus journalists into censoring their own articles. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' lawyers for the Stanford Daily, the university's independent 133-year-old publication, wrote in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose. They said staff writers holding legal U.S. visas 'are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their immigration status.' One editor resigned from the newspaper, another editor and present and former reporters have asked to have their articles removed from the website and 'international students have also largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists,' the suit said. It was filed a day after Stanford officials announced that they might lay off 363 non-teaching employees this fall because of a $750 million tax increase imposed by President Donald Trump's budget bill. The lawsuit is among multiple legal challenges to the Trump administration's attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters and their universities. A central issue, cited by the newspaper's lawyers, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that he can order deportation of any noncitizen for statements he considers 'anti-American' or 'anti-Israel.' Rubio cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if the secretary decides the person's 'beliefs, statements or associations … compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' He invoked that provision against Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was arrested in March and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days before a federal judge ordered his release. Other campus activists have also been jailed, and Stanford reported that the visas of six students were revoked less than two weeks after Rubio's announcement in March. The lawsuit said Rubio's claim that a student's criticism of Israel harms a 'compelling United States foreign policy interest' is questionable — but regardless, his actions violate the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects noncitizens under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' wrote the attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout of San Francisco and Conor Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They asked a federal judge for an injunction that would halt the threats of deportation against critics of Israel or U.S. foreign policy. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, called the suit 'baseless.' 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable,' McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the United States has 'no room' for 'the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store