MAGA Supporters Are Revealing If They Support President Trump Running For A Third Term, And There's A Lot To Unpack Here
Whelp, President Donald Trump has been hinting about potentially running for a third presidential term in 2028, even though it goes against the 22nd Amendment. When asked about what methods he would use to run again during a recent interview with Time, Trump said, "There are some loopholes that have been discussed that are well known. But I don't believe in loopholes. I don't believe in using loopholes."
Even though he hasn't clearly stated that he plans on running for a third term, he has begun selling "Trump 2028" MAGA-like hats on the Trump Organization's official website. His son Eric has even worn the hat.
Naturally, this has sparked a lot of conversations across the internet. So when Reddit user Toxiholic asked: "MAGA, do you support Trump running a third term?" a lot of people did not hold back their responses. Here's what they said below:
1."No, I'm not for anyone staying in the office for more than eight years. I'd also like term limits on Congress."
—monkey_spanker2025
"I'd also like age limits."
—Shivy_Shankinz
"We need age limits for the Judiciary and Congress, too. The type of people who seek power are too often also the type of people who are unable to recognize when it's time to give up their power."
—inevitable-typo
2."Stop normalizing this talk. It would be an ILLEGAL third term. Always put the word ILLEGAL in front of it."
—DownvoteYoo
3."Anyone who supports it, regardless of party affiliation, cannot simultaneously claim to support the Constitution, including the 'sacred' 2nd Amendment.
—RonWill79
4."No. Unequivocally no. And I am vocal about this in every Trump-friendly public forum. Presidents should serve a maximum of two terms and not attempt to subvert the Constitution."
—Onebaseallennn
Related: People Are Obsessed With Pope Francis's Final, Resounding Message To JD Vance After His Visit To The Vatican
5."No! I voted for him, but term limits need to stay in place — in fact, all politicians should have term limits."
—Sea-Balance1112
6."It's wild that's one of the few things the left and right agree on, yet Congress refuses to."
—Toxiholic
"Because no one on the right is speaking up about it. Some of them might admit that it's wrong, but it takes an entire curated song and dance where you force them to talk themselves into a corner, and then they can finally say that they disagree with it, but that is the absolute maximum you will ever see. It goes no further because they are scared to go against him. It's really sad, honestly."
—Buzzdanume
7."I would be fine with him running again. If I believe he is the best person running, I would vote for him. If he is not, then I'll vote for someone else. I don't like the idea of people staying in office for extended periods, but I'll vote for whoever I believe is best."
—Virtual_Flower2626
8."Any state Secretary of State who allows him on a ballot is violating the Constitution and should be personally prosecuted, regardless of the outcome."
—lumberjack_jeff
Related: Donald Trump Supporters Are Waking Up To The Reality Of Their Ballot Choices, And The Stories Are A Loooooot
9."I'm ex-MAGA and absolutely not. Even if I were still MAGA, absolutely not. It's unacceptable for him to change the term of presidency to be able to stay in office."
—SoilLongjumping5311
10."I'm a Republican living in a deep red state, and I've never actually met anyone who's in favor of this."
—renecade24
11."I support NO ONE running for a third term. I want even more restrictions on the president. There has got to be an age limit. Anyone with a felony should not be able to run. There should be a limit on campaign funding. There should also be term limits on senators, governors, and judges because clearly none of this is working."
—LocksmithHot7730
12."It doesn't matter, he's not gonna run a third term, he's gonna make sure that he's declared martial law to the extent that he's able to postpone the elections, indefinitely. He's gonna make sure that we're in some kind of civil action that would justify his declaration of martial law."
—lizndale
13."Dude, he is winning a third term, then Vance in 2032."
—Lucky_Start2418
14."Nope. No president in the last 30 years has deserved even a second term. We have lowered our standards."
—Cool_Dude_2025
15."I think the question is, would you vote for Trump, or anyone, if they broke the law and ignored the Constitution, in order to run for a third term, or found some legal and immoral way to run a third term? Like, would MAGA support the violation of the law to vote for Trump?"
—abida_abida
16."Why would anyone want someone with the mental state of his current mind today to serve again another term? The older he gets, the worse he gets. Will he leave quietly? Depends on whether he even knows if he's still the president by that time."
—Party_Use4138
17."My parents are hardcore MAGA, and they said they would not be okay with him or anyone else doing a third term."
—corgioreo
18."As a conservative, I take the Constitution seriously, so no, a third term is not and should not be possible for him. Should he attempt to run or even get on the ballot somehow, no way I'm voting for him. I would also vehemently oppose it on all fronts. I also agree with some others on this thread that we need term limits on all offices. Eight years for presidents and house reps, 12 years (two terms) for senators, and 15 years max for Supreme Court Justices."
—Kactor11
19."If he were younger, maybe, but the ultimate answer is no. They amended the constitution so that the president can only serve two terms. I don't see him getting support for another amendment to overturn the first one. And I don't see the electoral commissions in each state putting him on the ballot as long as that amendment is intact. I do like him as a chief executive. The government is out of control, and hopefully, we can have a better budget and plans to get this debt down in three years. However, the constitution must be upheld, and that will mean no third term for him."
—Expensive-Matter-683
MAGA supporters, would you vote for Trump if he ran for a third term? Let us know why or why not in the comments or in the anonymous Google form below.
Also in In the News: "Honestly Speechless At How Evil This Is": 26 Brutal, Brutal, Brutal Political Tweets Of The Week
Also in In the News: Everyone Is Absolutely Losing It Over This Canadian Newspaper Mocking Donald Trump
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
19 minutes ago
- CNN
See moment Trump criticized Musk in Oval Office
See moment Trump criticized Musk in Oval Office President Trump said he was 'very disappointed' with Elon Musk, as the tech billionaire and former adviser continues to blast Trump's massive tax and spending cuts package. The bill is estimated to add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Musk responded on X in real-time saying that he never saw the bill before it passed and said the elimination of America's electric vehicle tax incentives has nothing to do with his opposition to Trump's bill. 01:15 - Source: CNN Vertical Politics of the Day 16 videos See moment Trump criticized Musk in Oval Office President Trump said he was 'very disappointed' with Elon Musk, as the tech billionaire and former adviser continues to blast Trump's massive tax and spending cuts package. The bill is estimated to add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Musk responded on X in real-time saying that he never saw the bill before it passed and said the elimination of America's electric vehicle tax incentives has nothing to do with his opposition to Trump's bill. 01:15 - Source: CNN Curtis Yarvin is inspiring a new generation of MAGA CNN's Hadas Gold interviews anti-democracy author Curtis Yarvin about his argument for an all-powerful executive in the White House. 02:24 - Source: CNN DNC Trolls Trump with Taco Truck The Democratic National Committee parked a taco truck outside the RNC headquarters in Washington DC Tuesday, as a way to troll the president over an acronym created by a Financial Times commentator about the president's frequent walk backs and pauses to his tariff's. 00:52 - Source: CNN Musk calls Trump's bill 'disgusting abomination' Elon Musk lashed out at President Donald Trump's agenda bill — which the president is pressuring GOP senators to support — calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports. 00:59 - Source: CNN ICE chief defends agents wearing masks during immigration raids Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons is defending federal immigration agents for wearing masks during raids across the US, citing safety concerns. The tactic has sparked backlash and raised questions about transparency and accountability. 00:58 - Source: CNN Dana Bash presses Trump's budget chief about cancer cuts CNN's Dana Bash presses Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on the Trump administration's proposal to cut non-defense spending by more than 22% — including deep reductions to education, food assistance, and billions in cancer research funding. As Vought defends the cuts and criticizes the NIH, Bash challenges him on the real-world impact to life-saving medical research. 01:35 - Source: CNN Trump reacts to video of Macron's apparent shove from wife President Trump was asked by reporters about the viral video appearing to show French President Emmanuel Macron being pushed by his wife Brigitte as they disembarked from a plane in Vietnam. Macron, at the time, quickly dismissed the video. 00:34 - Source: CNN Trans high school athlete wins events amid controversy A transgender athlete, whose participation sparked a national controversy and a temporary rule change, took first place in two of her three events in the California High School Track and Field Championship. 01:09 - Source: CNN South Carolina voter says 'no' to moving center South Carolina has often bucked the electoral trend – voting for candidates who lost in Iowa or New Hampshire and thus helping pick which candidate will move on to the general election. CNN's Jeff Simon spoke to multiple voters at a Democrat dinner in Columbia, South Carolina about the party's leadership and future. 01:25 - Source: CNN Hegseth warns 'threat China poses is real' US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking to Asia's premier defense forum in Singapore, delivered a dire warning to the world: China's designs on Taiwan pose a threat to global peace and stability that requires 'our allies and partners do their part on defense.' While Hegseth made clear that Washington does not seek conflict with China, he stressed the Trump administration would not let aggression from Beijing stand. 00:50 - Source: CNN GOP senator pressed on Medicaid in heated town hall GOP Sen. Joni Ernst faced concerns from town hall attendees over potential cuts to Medicaid and SNAP programs as a result of President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill, saying at one point, 'Well, we all are going to die,' and insisting that those who are eligible for Medicaid will continue to receive payments. 01:12 - Source: CNN Fareed Zakaria breaks down Trump's tariff battle CNN's Fareed Zakaria breaks down what's going on with President Donald Trump's battle with the Supreme Court over tariffs. 00:58 - Source: CNN President Trump's timeline for things seems to almost always be 'in two weeks' President Donald Trump told reporters it will take about 'two weeks' to determine whether Russian President Vladimir Putin is serious about ending the war in Ukraine. That two week timeline, CNN's Abby Phillip says, is a familiar one. 01:48 - Source: CNN President Trump is on a pardoning spree President Donald Trump used his pardon power to grant clemency to a wave of individuals who had been convicted of crimes that range from public corruption, guns and even maritime-related offenses, according to multiple officials. CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports. 00:53 - Source: CNN Trump responds to Wall Street term 'TACO': Trump Always Chickens Out President Donald Trump was asked about "TACO," an acronym that means "Trump Always Chickens Out," which is used by Wall Street workers for his on-and-off approach to tariffs. Calling it "the nastiest question," Trump defended his tariff policy by calling it "negotiation." 01:13 - Source: CNN Harvard students and faculty speak out against Trump Harvard students and faculty spoke to CNN ahead of commencement as Donald Trump said the university should cap foreign enrollment. The Trump administration has recently sought to cancel $100 million in contracts with the school. 02:03 - Source: CNN
Vox
20 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court's blessedly narrow decision about religion in the workplace, explained
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. In 2018, shortly before Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation shifted the Supreme Court drastically to the right, Democratic Justice Elena Kagan laid out her strategy to keep her Court from becoming too ideological or too partisan. The secret, she said, is to take 'big questions and make them small.' Since then, Kagan and her Democratic colleagues have had mixed success persuading their colleagues to decide cases narrowly when they could hand right-wing litigants a sweeping victory. The Court has largely transformed its approach to religion, for example, though it does occasionally hand down religion cases that end less with a bang than with a whimper. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission will likely be remembered as such a whimper. The opinion is unanimous, and it is authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of Kagan's few fellow Democratic justices. The case could have ended in a sweeping decision that severely undermined the rights of many workers. Instead, Sotomayor's opinion focuses on a very narrow distinction between how Wisconsin law treats some religious groups as compared to others. Catholic Charities involved a Wisconsin law that exempts some nonprofits from paying unemployment taxes. This exemption applies only to employers that operate 'primarily for religious purposes.' Wisconsin's state supreme court determined that a 'religious purpose' includes activities like holding worship services or providing religious education, but it does not include secular services like feeding the poor, even if those secular activities are motivated by religion. Related The Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution The upshot is that Catholic Charities — an organization that is run by the Catholic Church but focuses primarily on secular charitable work — was not exempt from paying unemployment taxes. Sotomayor's decision reverses the state supreme court, so Catholic Charities will now receive an exemption. The Court largely avoids a fight over when businesses with a religious identity can ignore the law In a previous era, the Court was very cautious about permitting religious organizations to claim exemptions, in part because doing so would give some businesses 'an advantage over their competitors.' Such exemptions could also potentially permit employers with a religious identity to exploit their workers. In Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985), for example, the Court considered a religious cult that operated a wide range of commercial businesses. These businesses paid no cash salaries or wages, although they did claim to give workers food, clothing, and shelter. The cult sought an exemption from minimum wage laws and similar workplace protections, but the Court disagreed. A too-broad decision in Catholic Charities could have potentially undermined decisions like Alamo Foundation, by giving some employers a broad right to ignore laws protecting their workers. But Sotomayor's opinion reads like it was crafted to hand Catholic Charities the narrowest possible victory. Under the state supreme court's decision in Catholic Charities, Sotomayor writes, a church-run nonprofit that does entirely secular charity work may not receive an exemption from paying unemployment taxes. But a virtually identical nonprofit that does the exact same work but also engages in 'proselytization' or limits its services to members of the same faith would receive an exemption. This distinction, Sotomayor says, violates the Supreme Court's long-standing rule that the government 'may not 'officially prefe[r]' one religious denomination over another.' The state may potentially require all charities to pay unemployment taxes. But it cannot treat religious charities that seek to convert people, or that limit their services to members of one faith, differently from religious charities that do not do this. In Sotomayor's words, an organization's 'eligibility for the exemption ultimately turns on inherently religious choices (namely, whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists).' The crux of Sotomayor's opinion is that the decision whether to try to convert people, or whether to serve non-Catholics, is an inherently 'theological' choice. And states cannot treat different religious organizations differently because of their theological choices. Unfortunately, Sotomayor's opinion, which is a brief 15 pages, does not really define the term 'theological.' So it is likely that future courts will have to wrestle with whether other laws that treat some organizations differently do so because of theological differences or for some other reason. It's not hard to imagine a cult like the one in Alamo Foundation claiming that it has a theological objection to paying the minimum wage. But the Catholic Charities opinion also does not explicitly undermine decisions like Alamo Foundation. Nor does it embrace a more sweeping approach proposed by dissenting justices in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who argued that nonprofits whose 'motivations are religious' may claim an exemption — regardless of what that nonprofit actually does.
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Merz says US in 'strong position' to stop Putin, Trump says 'let them fight for a little while'
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told President Donald Trump he is in a "strong position" to stop Russia's war in Ukraine, to which the president suggested maybe the world needs to "let them fight for a little while." "America is again in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war," Merz said, while also referencing the U.S.'s role in ending World War II on the eve of the anniversary of D-Day, which marked the turn of events that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. "So let's talk about what we can do jointly, and we are ready to do what we can." Merz called for more pressure to be placed on Russia in coordination with European allies. Trump responded by providing an analogy of two kids fighting, and suggested perhaps it was "too early" to break up the fight between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. "Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy – they hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart, they don't want to be pulled," Trump said. "Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart." Trump said he gave that analogy to Putin in his call with him on Wednesday and said he told the Kremlin chief "maybe you're going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot." Reporters asked Merz, who has been an ardent supporter of Ukraine and recently lifted Germany's existing strike bans, if he agrees with Trump that "fighting it out" was the way to proceed. "I think we both agree on this war and how terrible this war is. And we are both looking for ways to stop it very soon," Merz said. "I told the president before we came in that he is the key person in the world who can really do that now by putting pressure on Russia, and we will have this debate later on again, how we can proceed jointly between the Europeans and the Americans. "I think we are all… having the duty to do something on that now, to stop it after three and a half years, which is really terrible," he added, making it clear without directly contradicting the president that he did not agree with Trump. "We are on the side of Ukraine, and we are trying to get them stronger and stronger just to make Putin stop this war. This is our approach," Merz added.
