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

People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

Getty Images, Philippe Debled

The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished

A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.

Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Has Forgotten Its Oath — and the Nation Is Paying the Price

US Capitol

Congress Has Forgotten Its Oath — and the Nation Is Paying the Price

What has happened to the U.S. Congress? Once the anchor of American democracy, it now delivers chaos and a record of inaction that leaves millions of Americans vulnerable. A branch designed to defend the Constitution has instead drifted into paralysis — and the nation is paying the price. It must break its silence and reassert its constitutional role.

The Constitution created three coequal branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — each designed to balance and restrain the others. The Framers placed Congress first in Article I (U.S. Constitution) because they believed the people’s representatives should hold the greatest responsibility: to write laws, control spending, conduct oversight, and ensure that no president or agency escapes accountability. Congress was meant to be the branch closest to the people — the one that listens, deliberates, and acts on behalf of the nation.

Keep ReadingShow less
WI professor: Dems face breaking point over DHS funding feud

Republicans will need some Democratic support to pass the multi-bill spending package in time to avoid a partial government shutdown.

(Adobe Stock)

WI professor: Dems face breaking point over DHS funding feud

A Wisconsin professor is calling another potential government shutdown the ultimate test for the Democratic Party.

Congress is currently in contentious negotiations over a House-approved bill containing additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security, including billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as national political uproar continues after immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, 37, in Minneapolis during protests over the weekend.

Keep ReadingShow less