Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term

President-Elect Donald Trump speaks during a victory rally at the Capital One Arena on January 19, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images)

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about but that often don't get the right news coverage.

Is 12 years too long to serve in the White House?


The constitutional amendment

A new constitutional amendment proposal would allow a president to be elected to three terms, but only if their first two terms were non-consecutive.

In other words, Donald Trump would be allowed to run for a third term in 2028 – but not the other living consecutive two-term former presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

The House joint resolution was introduced on January 23 by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN5).

Context: Trump

While running for his second term in 2024, Donald Trump repeatedly suggested that he could later run for a third, though always with a tongue-in-cheek tone. In a Texas speech, he added the phrase “I don’t know,” while in a Nevada speech, he added that the proposal was a “headline for the fake news.”

Indeed, when asked seriously about the possibility, Trump brushed off his prior comments as a joke. “Somebody's looking to terminate [the 22nd Amendment]... not for me. I wouldn't be in favor of it at all,” Trump told Eric Cortellessa of Time Magazine. “I intend to serve four [more] years and do a great job.”

Indeed, Trump’s son, Donald Jr. said in a speech: “We are getting four more years of Trump and then eight years of J.D. Vance!" – implying that the existing two-term limit would remain.

Context: History

The first president, George Washington, voluntarily stepped down after two terms, or eight years total – even though he likely would have won the election for a third term. For 140 years after that, no president was ever elected to a third term.

That didn’t stop a few from trying, though. While most voluntarily stepped down after either one or two terms, honoring Washington’s original precedent, a third term wasn’t actually banned. Indeed, a few two-term presidents ran for a third term but lost, including Ulysses Grant in 1880 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.

That changed after President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to not just an unprecedented third term in 1940, but an unprecedented fourth term in 1944. (He died in 1945, only a few months into that fourth term.) In response, the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951, allowing a president only to be elected twice.

What supporters say

The new proposal’s lead sponsor argues it not on general principles, but Trump-specific ones – even though, if ratified, it would apply to every president for the rest of time.

Trump “has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal,” Rep. Ogles said in a press release. “This amendment would allow President Trump to serve three terms, ensuring that we can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the two-term limit makes some sense – and that includes some former two-term presidents themselves.

“On balance, the arguments for executive term limits are pretty compelling,” Clinton said In a 2000 Rolling Stone interview with Jann Wenner, admitting he’d have run for a third term if he could and predicting he’d have won. “I mean, I have an extra amount of energy and I love this job; I love the nature of this work. But maybe it’s better to leave when you’re in good.”

Or as Obama put it in his comedic interview with The Hangover actor Zach Galifianakis on Between Two Ferns: “Actually, I think it’s a good idea. If I ran a third time, it’d be sort of like doing a third Hangover movie. It didn’t really work out very well, did it?”

Bipartisan?

At least in theory, many Democrats could get behind this constitutional amendment, too.

Of the last three presidents to serve two full terms, the two Democrats – Obama and Clinton – ended with positive job approval, implying that they may have won a hypothetical third term. The Republican, Bush, ended with strongly negative job approval instead. On paper, that could seemingly imply more Democratic than Republican support.

Indeed, liberal opinion columnist Matt Yglesias advocated abolishing presidential term limits for Vox in 2016, with the headline: “Democrats’ best choice for 2016 is the guy already in the White House.”

However, Democratic cosponsorship seems unlikely at the moment, considering Rep. Ogles posted a link to a Fox News article about his proposal on X (formerly known as Twitter) with the caption “TRUMP 2028” in all caps alongside an American flag emoji.

Odds of passage

The legislation has not yet attracted any cosponsors, not even any Republicans.

It now awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee, controlled by Republicans. No Senate companion version appears to have been introduced yet.

Unlike a “regular” bill, though, constitutional amendments must pass with two-thirds of both congressional chambers. While Republicans currently hold slight majorities in both, they fall well short of two-thirds in both the House and Senate.

Even if it passed both chambers, it would still have to be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, or 38 of the 50. But Trump “only” won 31 states. So that means at least seven more states that voted for Kamala Harris would have to sign on.

And that’s assuming all of those 31 state legislatures voted to ratify the amendment in the first place. Four states voted for Trump, yet don’t have full Republican legislature control: Alaska, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.


Read More

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Believes in Iranian Regime Change — Experts Contradict Him

Dacha Burns and Reza Pahlavi at the Politico Security Summit

(GEORGIA EPIPHANIOU/ MNS)

Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Believes in Iranian Regime Change — Experts Contradict Him

WASHINGTON — At a tenuous moment for the U.S.-Iran war, President Trump rejected Tehran’s terms for a truce proposal Monday. With negotiations stalled and concessions on a ceasefire deal dragging on, exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi emphasized that regime change still could happen.

“Of course, it (a regime change) is a possibility, but more than a possibility, it is a necessity,” Pahlavi said in a security panel hosted by Politico on Tuesday.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less