Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which politicians have proposed significant changes to constitutional powers in 2025?
Executive Summary
Two broad sets of politicians proposed significant constitutional changes in 2025: UK-aligned reformers and several U.S. state and federal actors advancing amendments or conventions. Major claims in the dataset include Labour-facing UK proposals for far-reaching reform (including votes for 16–17 year olds and House changes), U.S. Republican proposals to alter presidential term limits and congressional structures, and a mix of state-level amendment drives addressing criminal justice and voting ages [1] [2] [3] [4]. Below I extract the key claims, contextualize them with dates and sources, and compare competing motivations and likely outcomes.
1. Who’s claiming big constitutional overhauls—and what exactly are they proposing?
The dataset identifies several discrete claims: UK-oriented reforms described as comprehensive by a constitutional unit report and commentary advocating abolition of the House of Lords; a U.S. House member seeking an amendment to permit a third presidential term; state-level moves in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Minnesota to change criminal-bond rules, discipline out-of-state lawyers, and lower local voting ages to 16, respectively [1] [5] [2] [3] [6] [4]. These are heterogeneous proposals—some redraw institutional powers while others adjust procedural rules—so their constitutional significance varies by jurisdiction and legal threshold for amendment.
2. What the UK proposals actually amount to and who’s pushing them
A March 2025 constitutional-analysis piece framed a broad agenda of reform touching the House of Commons and House of Lords, devolution within England, and enfranchising 16–17-year-olds, representing systemic constitutional redesign rather than narrow tinkering [1]. Opinion commentary from early March 2025 argued more radical change—abolition of the House of Lords—as a democratic corrective to anti-politics sentiment [5]. The actors here range from institutional researchers and party-aligned reformers to opinion writers, indicating both policy proposals under consideration and public advocacy aimed at influencing political will ahead of legislative initiatives.
3. Federal-level U.S. proposals: term limits and a third presidential term push
In April 2025 reporting, a House member’s proposed amendment to allow a third presidential term for a named former president was highlighted as an explicit bid to alter the presidential succession rules, and associated commentary warned of risks tied to calls for a constitutional convention [2]. Separate coverage indicates national figures and state GOP leaders advocating term limits for Congress, which would require a constitutional amendment and is framed as restoring accountability [7]. Changing term limits or presidential term caps would be among the most profound constitutional alterations, requiring supermajorities and state ratification; proponents must confront steep procedural obstacles.
4. State-level fights show both criminal-justice tightening and youth-enfranchisement experiments
Tennessee’s proposed amendment to remove bond for serious crimes was introduced in early 2025 and backed by state legislative leadership citing public safety narratives, representing a state constitution-level shift in pretrial protections [3]. Louisiana’s governor pushed multiple amendments—covering out-of-state lawyers and juvenile-to-adult charging thresholds—but voters rejected all measures in March 2025, showing electoral checks on gubernatorial amendment strategies [6]. Minnesota lawmakers proposed a 16-year-old local voting amendment for the 2026 ballot, aligning with UK youth-enfranchisement debate and showing a cross-jurisdiction trend toward experimenting with voting age [4].
5. Where other democracies’ proposals fit the picture—symbolic versus structural change
The dataset includes proposals outside the UK/US constitutional core: New Zealand’s NZ First leader advocated making “New Zealand” the country’s official legal name, a move framed as constitutional identity rather than redistributing power; Australian coverage focused on a senator’s experiences and not constitutional amendments [8] [9]. These measures illustrate a spectrum from symbolic constitutional identity changes to explicit shifts in governance structures, underscoring that “significant” can mean different things: symbolism and legal recognition in one context, procedural or institutional reengineering in another.
6. Motives, political audiences and likely obstacles—reading the incentives
Across these items, motivations vary: parties and reform commissions frame changes as modernization (UK vote and chamber reform), conservative figures or state executives emphasize law-and-order or anti-elite remedies (Tennessee, Louisiana, term-limit advocates), and populist actors pursue national identity or executive advantage (third-term push, NZ First naming) [1] [3] [6] [8] [2]. Procedural requirements—legislative thresholds, referendums, and ratification—constitute major barriers, and past electoral rejections (Louisiana) signal that public assent is not assured even for executive-promoted amendments.
7. What to watch next and the calendar that matters most
Key near-term markers include Minnesota’s legislative trajectory toward a 2026 ballot decision on 16-year-old local voting, Tennessee legislative action on bond amendments, and continued national debate over term limits and presidential succession that could surface in party platforms or proposed amendment texts [4] [3] [7] [2]. Watch for formal text, fiscal/legal analyses, and referendum scheduling; proposals that start as rhetorical claims will need legal drafting and campaign coalitions to clear amendment thresholds, which remain the decisive bottleneck between proposed constitutional change and enacted constitutional transformation.