Fact check: Is Trump eligible to run for a third term as president?

1. What supporters are loudly claiming — and why it matters

Steve Bannon and other MAGA-aligned figures have publicly asserted that there is a plan to put Donald Trump back in the White House for a third term, framing it as both inevitable and necessary for completing their agenda. These statements have appeared across outlets in late October 2025 as part of interviews and commentary, and they serve as political signaling to rally base supporters and shape expectations about 2028 ^{[2] [3]}. The messaging often implies multiple workarounds or pressure points on institutions rather than a straightforward electoral path; characterizing these as definitive legal strategies conflates advocacy with constitutional reality ^[1].

2. The constitutional wall: Why the 22nd Amendment matters

The 22nd Amendment plainly restricts any person from being elected president more than twice, a limitation that would bar Trump from winning an additional elected term if he has already served two terms. Legal scholars and mainstream coverage reiterate this bright-line rule, and the amendment’s text provides no routine exception for political preference or party maneuvering. Re-election as framed by supporters would therefore conflict directly with the constitutional restriction, making any claim of straightforward eligibility inaccurate under current law ^{[1] [4]}.

3. Repeal: Constitutional process and political reality

Repealing or amending the 22nd Amendment would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures — a deliberately high threshold. Historical precedent shows that successful constitutional amendments are rare and typically arise from broad bipartisan consensus or national crisis; the practical political hurdle of persuading enough governors and state legislatures makes repeal an extremely difficult path in the near term ^{[4] [5]}. Assertions that repeal is a feasible short-term route to a third-term presidency do not align with the established amendment process.

4. Alternative routes being floated — vague but politically charged

Outlets report that advisers claim there are “alternatives” to changing the Amendment, with talk of novel legal strategies or unconventional political tactics to keep Trump’s influence in power. These proposals are described in media interviews as exploratory and lack detailed, public legal blueprints. Such alternatives appear speculative and intended to normalize the idea of a third term rather than present a tested constitutional mechanism; coverage underscores the absence of concrete, legally vetted methods that would lawfully permit a third elected term under current rules ^{[3] [6]}.

5. Who is pushing the idea and what they stand to gain

Figures promoting a third-term narrative include longtime allies and political operatives who benefit from galvanizing a core constituency and shaping intra-party dynamics. Representative Randy Fine and media commentators have publicly discussed repeal as a possibility contingent on political successes, illustrating how policy victories are being tied rhetorically to constitutional change. These actors have clear political incentives to amplify the idea — fundraising, mobilization, and negotiating leverage within the GOP — which suggests the claims should be read as partisan strategy as much as legal analysis ^{[5] [6]}.

6. How mainstream newsrooms are treating the story

Major outlets have reported Bannon’s comments and allied rhetoric while simultaneously noting the constitutional barrier and the implausibility of short-term repeal. Coverage from late October 2025 balances the dramatic assertions with constitutional context, signaling that while the narrative has traction in certain media cycles, reporters emphasize the absence of a lawful, immediate path to a third elected term. This pattern highlights the tension between sensational political claims and the sober mechanics of constitutional law ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

7. Bottom line — realism, not rhetoric

Under current law, Trump cannot be elected to a third presidential term because of the 22nd Amendment; any credible change would require the arduous constitutional amendment process or an as-yet-unarticulated legal innovation. Public claims about “plans” are active political rhetoric aimed at base consolidation and agenda-setting, not demonstrations that a lawful third-term route exists today. Absent major bipartisan constitutional action or a clear, legally sound alternative disclosed and litigated in the public sphere, the realistic outcome remains that a third elected term is highly unlikely ^{[1] [4] [5]}.