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: Have there been any attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment since its ratification in 1951?
Executive Summary
There have been numerous legislative attempts to repeal or modify the 22nd Amendment since its 1951 ratification, but none have succeeded; repeal proposals have repeatedly failed to clear congressional hurdles or state ratification [1] [2]. These initiatives span decades, involve figures from both parties, and often reflect contemporaneous political motives rather than broad national consensus; recent 2024–2025 activity renewed debate but likewise produced only proposals and commentary, not amendment progress [3] [4] [5].
1. How often have lawmakers tried — and who kept trying?
Members of Congress have introduced repeated bills aiming to repeal or alter the 22nd Amendment from the mid‑1980s through the 2020s, showing a pattern of periodic legislative attention rather than sustained momentum toward repeal. Representative Guy Vander Jagt proposed efforts in the late 1980s, Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell each floated measures at different times, and Representative Jose E. Serrano introduced at least nine separate repeal bills since the late 1990s, none of which advanced to a floor vote or passed committee [1] [6]. This bipartisan assortment of sponsors indicates recurring interest across party lines, but not legislative traction.
2. Why have these attempts failed to alter the Constitution?
Constitutional amendment requires a two‑thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three‑quarters of state legislatures, a deliberately high bar that has prevented repeal despite repeated proposals. Historical efforts stalled at the introduction stage, in committee, or failed to attract the supermajorities necessary for formal amendment consideration; no repeal proposal reached the state‑ratification stage [1] [2]. Legal scholars and commentators have also framed political resistance on grounds that the amendment institutionalizes a safeguard against extended executive power, a rationale that complicates bipartisan coalition building for repeal [6] [7].
3. Who pushed repeal and why — policy argument versus political aim?
Advocates who introduced repeal bills cited both principled and partisan rationales: some argued term limits restrict voter choice or can disadvantage experienced leaders, while others appeared motivated by specific political contexts and figures. Recent 2025 proposals, for instance, were tied in public commentary to the political fortunes of former President Donald Trump and attempts to enable a third, potentially non‑consecutive, term; these contemporary pushes illustrate how individual political ambitions often animate repeal talk [3] [4]. Opponents framed the amendment as a guardrail against executive entrenchment, stressing the historical response to FDR’s four terms [8].
4. Are there credible legal workarounds or loopholes being considered?
Commentators and legal experts have discussed workaround strategies such as seeking roles like vice president or speaker of the House and relying on succession rules, but most legal analyses conclude such end‑runs are unlikely to succeed because the 22nd Amendment limits election to the presidency and construes total service, not merely electoral victories [5] [4]. These discussions underscore why repeal proponents sometimes shift toward political maneuvers or symbolic legislation rather than a direct constitutional repeal, knowing the amendment’s language and ratification threshold pose formidable barriers [3].
5. How does recent attention compare to historical patterns?
The pattern from 1951 through the 2000s is one of episodic proposals without follow‑through; the 1980s–1990s saw multiple bipartisan bills that failed to advance, and the 2000s–2020s continued this trend with additional but unsuccessful attempts [1] [6]. The 2024–2025 uptick in media and legislative activity reflects renewed partisan salience around specific figures rather than a durable shift in institutional support; renewed debate does not equal legislative feasibility, given the same constitutional mechanics that blocked prior efforts [3] [2].
6. What are the broader political and constitutional implications if repeal were pursued seriously?
A serious repeal campaign would require broad, sustained political consensus across states and parties; achieving two‑thirds congressional support and three‑quarters state ratification would necessitate reframing the amendment from a partisan to a popular constitutional issue. Proponents would have to overcome arguments that repeal risks concentration of executive power and reject the historical judgment that arose in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms [8] [7]. The absence of successful repeal attempts since 1951 demonstrates both the structural difficulty of constitutional change and the enduring political valuation of presidential term limits [1].
7. Bottom line — what the facts show today
The factual record is clear: there have been multiple, bipartisan repeal attempts over decades, but no successful repeal or amendment altering the two‑term limit has passed Congress or been ratified by the states since 1951. Recent 2024–2025 proposals and media coverage revived debate and explored potential legal maneuvers, yet they remain proposals and commentary, not constitutional change [1] [3] [4]. Any future shift would require a rare and sustained political consensus that has not emerged in more than seven decades [2] [8].