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: Can a president serve more than 2 terms in office?
Executive Summary
The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment bars any person from being elected President more than twice, creating a clear legal prohibition on a third elected term; proposals to repeal or circumvent it are politically and legally fraught but continue to surface in political debate [1] [2]. Recent public statements and proposals — including Steve Bannon’s claim of a plan for Donald Trump to seek 2028 and Representative Randy Fine’s call to repeal the amendment — reflect political ambitions and strategic thinking, not settled legal pathways, and most legal analyses conclude such efforts are unlikely to succeed [3] [4] [5].
1. Why the Two-Term Rule Exists and What It Actually Says
The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951 to forestall indefinite presidential tenure following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms, and its plain text prohibits any person from being elected President more than twice, with a specific exception for someone who served less than two years of another’s term [6] [1]. The amendment’s language is precise: a person who has been elected president twice cannot be elected again, and a person who served more than two years of a term to which another was elected may only be elected once. This statutory clarity is why scholars treat the amendment as the fundamental legal barrier to a third elected term [1] [7].
2. Recent Political Moves — Talk of Repeal and “Plans” for 2028
In October 2025, Steve Bannon publicly asserted there is a plan for Donald Trump to pursue a 2028 bid despite the 22nd Amendment, framing the proposal as a political strategy rather than a settled legal solution [3]. Representative Randy Fine has explicitly proposed repealing the 22nd Amendment to allow Trump a third term if certain policy achievements occur, illustrating that some political actors are pursuing formal constitutional change rather than legalistic workarounds [4]. These developments are tactical and campaign-oriented, and they reveal partisan incentives to explore constitutional revisions when politics align with individual ambitions [3] [4].
3. Legal Views on Workarounds — Vice Presidency, Loopholes, and Expert Skepticism
Legal commentators have mapped hypothetical workarounds — for example, a twice-elected president serving as vice president and ascending to the presidency — but these ideas face serious legal obstacles and contested constitutional interpretation, and most experts judge them unlikely to succeed in courts or Congress [8] [5]. The amendment’s drafters and subsequent analyses make clear that electability, not mere occupancy of the office, is the prohibited act; thus, attempts to manipulate technical routes or exploit drafting gaps would provoke litigation, Supreme Court review, and likely political backlash [7] [8]. Scholarly consensus emphasizes that the amendment’s intent and wording aim to prevent the precise outcome these strategies seek to achieve [6].
4. Repeal: Practical and Political Hurdles for Changing the Constitution
Repealing a constitutional amendment requires a new amendment with two-thirds of both congressional houses and ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures, a formidable political threshold that has frustrated many ambitious constitutional projects historically [1]. Representative proposals to repeal the 22nd Amendment underscore political will among some actors, but they do not change the legal reality; any repeal attempt would demand sustained, broad bipartisan support and face intense public scrutiny and mobilization, making near-term repeal improbable absent dramatic shifts in national politics [4] [6].
5. What Experts and Historical Context Make Clear About Likelihood
Historical context — the amendment’s origin in response to Roosevelt’s multi-term presidency — and contemporary legal analysis converge on the conclusion that serving more than two elected terms is structurally disfavored by both law and political norms [6] [9]. While public figures and advisers may promote creative strategies or constitutional revision, leading legal scholars and commentators emphasize constitutional text, institutional checks, and political realities as counterweights that render a bona fide third elected term highly unlikely without an extraordinary constitutional change [5] [7].
6. Bottom Line: Claims, Agendas, and What to Watch Next
Claims that a president can simply serve a third elected term misread the 22nd Amendment’s explicit ban and understate procedural barriers to repeal; statements about plans or loopholes are best read as political messaging or attempts to frame a future electoral narrative rather than established legal options [3] [1]. Observers should watch for formal legislative moves to propose amendment language, state-level mobilization for ratification, and any legal maneuvers that would invite Supreme Court review; absent those sustained, cross‑institutional steps, the two-term limit remains the operative constitutional rule [4] [8].