Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump 2028—A Test of Constitutional Resolve

Opinion

Trump 2028—A Test of Constitutional Resolve

When Steve Bannon says Donald Trump should serve a third term, he’s not joking. He’s not even being coy. He’s laying ideological groundwork for a constitutional stress test that could redefine the limits of executive power in the United States.

Bannon was asked how Trump could legally serve a third term. “There’s many different alternatives,” Bannon told The Economist. "Trump is going to be president in '28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that. At the appropriate time, we'll lay out what the plan is."


Bannon didn’t elaborate. He didn’t need to. The ambiguity is the point. It invites speculation, fuels loyalty, and dares the public to imagine a reality where rules bend to will.

- YouTube youtu.be

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on his way to Japan from Malaysia, Trump did not rule out seeking a third term. "All I can tell you is that we have a great group of people, which they don't," he added, referring to Democrats.

The Trump Organization has already begun selling “Trump 2028” merchandise, including hats that reportedly appeared in the Oval Office during a pre-shutdown meeting with congressional leaders. This symbolic gesture has fueled speculation that Trump is not merely entertaining the idea but actively laying the groundwork for a third campaign.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) expressed concern over the optics of Trump’s third-term signaling. According to The Hill, Jeffries confronted Vice President J.D. Vance about the Trump 2028 hats in the Oval Office, to which Vance replied, “No comment”.

Can Trump serve a third term as US president? The legal and political feasibility of such a move remains murky.

The 22nd Amendment prohibits any person from being elected president more than twice. Ratified in 1951 after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four-term presidency, it was designed to prevent exactly this kind of power consolidation. But Bannon and others in Trump’s orbit aren’t interested in constitutional clarity. They’re interested in constitutional elasticity.

Legal experts and constitutional scholars have warned that any attempt to circumvent the 22nd Amendment would trigger a constitutional crisis. “The amendment is clear,” said Professor Linda Chavez of Georgetown Law. “Any effort to reinterpret or bypass it would undermine the rule of law and democratic norms.”

The idea that Trump could run again in 2028 is legally implausible. But in today’s political climate, implausibility is no longer a deterrent—it’s a dare. The real danger isn’t that Trump will succeed in securing a third term. It’s that the conversation itself normalizes the erosion of constitutional boundaries.

Bannon has gone further, framing the stakes in existential terms. “God forbid we don’t win in ’28, President Trump is going to prison,” he said on Real America’s Voice. “We’re at war.” This isn’t just rhetoric—it’s a narrative of persecution, designed to galvanize supporters and justify extraordinary measures.

What we’re seeing now is a deliberate attempt to test the elasticity of our democratic norms. The Trump 2028 campaign may never materialize legally, but its symbolic power is already reshaping the political terrain.

Trump’s third-term talk isn’t just about one man’s ambition. It’s about whether America still believes in the guardrails that protect its democracy. If we shrug off this rhetoric as mere spectacle, we risk waking up in a system where spectacle becomes precedent.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum. He is also the publisher of the Latino News Network.

Read More

Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A new Trump administration policy threatens to undermine foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone holding a microphone.

Personal stories from constituents can profoundly shape lawmakers’ decisions. This excerpt shows how citizen advocacy influences Congress and drives real policy change.

Getty Images, EyeEm Mobile GmbH

Want to Influence Government? Start With Your Story

[The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."]


Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-California) wanted to make a firm statement in support of continued funding of the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) during the recent government shutdown debate. But instead of making a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, she traveled to the Wilmington neighborhood of her Los Angeles district to a YMCA that was distributing fresh food and vegetables to people in need. She posted stories on X and described, in very practical terms, the people she met, their family stories, and the importance of food assistance programs.

Keep ReadingShow less