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: How many times has a president tried to serve a third term in US history?
Executive Summary
President Donald Trump has publicly teased seeking a third presidential term, but the U.S. Constitution’s 22nd Amendment bars any person from being elected to the presidency more than twice, and legal experts cited in contemporary reporting say there is no realistic constitutional path for a third elected term without an unprecedented amendment change [1] [2]. Political allies have discussed workarounds and strategic maneuvers to keep him in power, but constitutional, congressional, judicial, and state-level barriers make such schemes extremely unlikely in the current political environment [2]. Reporting on October 28, 2025 frames these comments as both a rhetorical strategy to maintain influence within the GOP and a substantive legal nonstarter, creating a split between political messaging and legal reality [3].
1. Why the Constitution is the central obstacle—and why that matters
The 22nd Amendment—ratified after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms—explicitly limits any person to two elected presidential terms, and contemporary legal analyses note that this provision is the decisive legal barrier to a third term. Reporters and constitutional scholars point out that changing or circumventing that amendment would require a formal constitutional amendment process: approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states, an outcome judged implausible given current partisan division [2] [1]. Coverage on October 28, 2025 underscores that alternative legal theories—such as interpreting vice-presidential succession or the 12th Amendment in ways that permit a third de facto term—face steep judicial skepticism and lack precedent, meaning the Constitution’s text and amendment process remain the primary, near-insurmountable hurdle [1].
2. What allies are proposing — and how credible those proposals are
Some of President Trump’s allies, including Steve Bannon as reported, have floated plans or hypotheticals aimed at keeping him in office beyond two terms, suggesting strategies to “work around” the 22nd Amendment or pursue alternative paths to power [2]. Journalistic analysis frames these proposals as political signaling more than viable legal blueprints: sources evaluate them as tools to mobilize the base and maintain control over Republican politics rather than as realizable constitutional changes [3]. Congressional leaders within the GOP, including House Speaker commentary cited on October 28, 2025, publicly dismissed notions that legal maneuvering could successfully invalidate the amendment, reinforcing the assessment that these proposals are politically inflammatory but legally weak [2].
3. Historical context: why the U.S. wrote the two-term limit and who tried more than two
The U.S. adopted the two-term limit culturally under George Washington and codified it after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four-term presidency, with the 22nd Amendment closing the door on repeat long tenures. Media reporting notes that Roosevelt remains the only president to serve more than two terms, and that historical memory of that era directly motivated the amendment’s adoption—an institutional safeguard against prolonged individual rule [3]. Contemporary coverage on October 28, 2025 frames Trump’s comments in that historical light, suggesting his rhetoric clashes with a constitutional norm designed to prevent the exact phenomenon he teases; this historical parallel is used by commentators to highlight the gravity and rarity of any genuine attempt to revive extended presidential tenure [1].
4. Political motives: why talk of a third term persists despite legal barriers
Analysts argue that talk of a third term serves strategic political purposes: sustaining donor enthusiasm, keeping media attention, and consolidating influence over party infrastructure without needing to overcome constitutional realities [3]. Coverage from October 28, 2025 places these comments in the context of declining approval ratings and intra-party jockeying, suggesting that the rhetoric functions as a lever to deter rivals and energize loyalists rather than as a credible roadmap to office. Reporting indicates that polls show many Americans believe Trump is serious about running in 2028, but experts interpret that belief as a reflection of political style and persuasive messaging, not of viable legal options to secure a third elected term [3].
5. Diverging voices and potential agendas to watch
Contemporary sources present two clear camps: legalists emphasizing the constitutional impossibility of a third elected term, and political operatives treating the talk as a power play within the Republican Party. News coverage highlights voices within Trump’s circle promoting creative solutions and institutional actors, like congressional leaders, dismissing them as unrealistic [2]. Readers should note possible agendas: allies amplify third-term talk to galvanize support, while institutional leaders may downplay it to preserve constitutional norms and party credibility. The October 28, 2025 reportage consistently signals a tension between political theatre and legal constraint, a dynamic that will determine whether these discussions remain rhetorical or escalate into constitutional debates [3] [2].