Can trump change the constitution to run for a third term
Executive summary
A constitutional change to allow a third elected presidential term would require a formal amendment to the U.S. Constitution — a political and procedural mountain that needs two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three‑fourths of the states — making it practically improbable in the short term [1] [2]. Legal scholars largely reject attempts to sidestep the 22nd Amendment by creative readings of succession or vice‑presidential schemes, though a small number of commentators and advisers have argued otherwise and tested public opinion with “trial balloons” [3] [4].
1. The plain legal route: amend the Constitution, not reinterpret it
The only straightforward, constitutionally recognized way to permit a president to be elected more than twice is to amend the Constitution, a process requiring a two‑thirds vote in both the House and Senate and ratification by 38 states — a high bar that scholars and political leaders describe as extremely difficult and slow, making a near‑term change unlikely [1] [2] [5].
2. What the 22nd Amendment actually says and why experts call it clear
The 22nd Amendment explicitly bars anyone from being elected to the presidency more than twice, language that the bulk of constitutional experts read as a clear prohibition on a third elected term; prominent fact‑checking and legal analyses describe the “loophole” theory as implausible and contrary to the amendment’s intent [3] [6].
3. The “vice‑president loophole” theory and the 12th Amendment counterargument
Some supporters floated a scheme where a two‑term president runs as vice‑president, then assumes the presidency through resignation or succession — a hypothetical that has drawn attention — but the 12th Amendment and many legal scholars argue against it by saying someone constitutionally ineligible for president cannot be vice‑president, which undercuts the strategy [4] [3] [7].
4. Succession and temporary service: narrow openings, not a third elected term
Scholars note narrow scenarios where a former two‑term president might temporarily exercise presidential power via the succession statutes or unusual appointments, but those are not the same as being elected to a new term and would themselves be highly litigated and constrained by other constitutional provisions; the Constitution Center and legal commentators stress these are exceptional hypotheticals, not clear paths to a third elected term [7].
5. Political reality: proposals, performative moves, and who benefits
Efforts to make a third term possible have included a House resolution proposing to amend the 22nd Amendment tailored to a specific individual and reactive measures reaffirming the two‑term limit, signaling that some political actors are advancing amendment language while opponents push clarifying resolutions — these moves are as much political signaling and fundraising as they are serious legal strategy [8] [9] [10].
6. The consensus and the outliers: why most experts reject the “loophole”
Although a small set of commentators and advisers — for example, Alan Dershowitz — have publicly questioned whether the Constitution is “clear,” mainstream constitutional scholars and institutions call the argument that a twice‑elected president can sidestep the 22nd Amendment “implausible” or “unambiguous” in its ban on a third elected term; that academic minority view has been used politically to keep debate alive, but it lacks broad judicial or scholarly endorsement as of the reported coverage [11] [3] [4].
7. Bottom line: change is legally possible but practically and politically remote
Legally, the Constitution can be amended to allow a third elected term, but achieving that requires overwhelming congressional and state legislative support — a practical barrier highlighted by congressional leaders and analysts — and every alternative legal workaround is contested and likely to be resolved against creative readings in the courts, meaning a unilateral or informal “change” by a sitting president is not supported by prevailing legal judgment [1] [5] [3].