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?”
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.
Children watch a July Fourth Parade along the Walkway of Heroes and Independence Avenue on July 04, 2026 in Tappan, New York.
The Great American Grumpfest
Our nation’s 250th birthday party didn’t feel especially patriotic and wasn’t as much fun as the 200th anniversary was.
President Trump, who did his best to co-opt our holiday for his personal aggrandizement, was a major reason. The party he threw in Washington, D.C., was crankier than uplifting, and less about celebrating our shared past and a promising future than about reminding us how far we have strayed from our founders’ plan to create a republic that future Americans would keep in good working order.
Credit Trump this much. He has a singular gift for picking at scabs that other politicians would rather ignore and pushing us into reckonings we don’t need.
The thing is, Americans have seen all this before. Sometimes the makeover we were encouraged to undertake was more conservative, sometimes more liberal. Whatever direction we were pushing, however, the reckoning we had in mind this time had to be more forthright and the conclusion more definitive than it was the last time.
Our current discontents, the ones behind the reckoning President Trump has been trying to inspire, are not trivial. Included among them are immigration, birthright citizenship, exploding healthcare costs, election rigging, a gag-inducing national debt, how we educate our children, too many genders, racial differences we can’t move past, a lopsided economy that favors more well-off Americans, and historic levels of political corruption and graft. Add to these the several foreign adventures he has pushed us into or is anxious to undertake, and you have the makings of a national headache the likes of which we haven’t had in half a century.
All the elbow-throwing and overheated rhetoric we’re using today have begun to look almost normal in all the ways that bickering neighbors and feuding family members appear normal. But they have also made us look mean-spirited and have portrayed our differences as irreconcilable. To ourselves, of course, but also to many people outside the United States who might be forgiven for turning their heads and not looking at the national car wreck we Americans show no interest in avoiding.
The good news, as I suggested above, is that Americans have had a great deal of practice dealing with challenges and national car wrecks like these.
This essay begins to lay out the reasons why.
By way of illustration, we have our seemingly insatiable demand for more bad news about race in America.
Sixty years after being released from the legal constrictions that bedeviled both white and black Americans, many white people have come to believe the color that used to make them unassailable is now a sign of a moral inferiority born of a racial animus they can never wash off. Many black people, on the other hand, are insisting that America is as hopelessly stacked against them as the formerly unassailable white people’s ancestors used to tell their black ones.
The result is that many people today are buying into racist nightmares and mumbo jumbo that their black and white ancestors worked hard and effectively to put in each other’s heads.
This might be dismissed as crazy behavior if it weren’t so important to rituals Americans have long used to express their deepest fears about each other while figuring out what move they can make that won’t end with their world crashing down on everybody’s head.
Unfortunately, the kind of cultural sleight of hand we have used to ramp up our racial differences has been appropriated by people who have many other cultural fears and unresolved differences with each other. Their clumsy but culturally prescribed missteps are making all these other issues look as irremediable as our racial problems.
A good place to start an answer to how we back away from ledges is Alexis de Tocqueville’s writing on early-19th-century American democracy. He had an optimistic take on Americans’ unscripted displays of public bravado, recrimination, and payback.
For him, these were occasions when people tried to mitigate the effects of the unfair hand they were dealing someone else or had themselves been dealt by behaving in ways quite at odds with how they would otherwise be expected to act. These inversions of what Tocqueville called “the natural order of conscience” presented themselves as a loud but culturally muted challenge to the hypocrisies that people had built into the world they’d made together.
One of his favorite illustrations of early-American hypocrisy involved slave masters sleeping with their less-than-worthy slaves. To the best of my knowledge, he didn’t pick up on all the ways that slaves messed with their owners. Their well-chronicled and quiet resistance showed that even severely ill-treated people can exercise more control over their lives than outsiders appreciate.
Be that as it may, such inversions of a people’s “natural order of conscience” make a good public show of them wrestling with demons they can’t or may not want to shake off, but in any case, are nowhere close to figuring out how to cast out.
Implicit in these disruptions was the discomforting idea that people might flip the entire script and turn the world on its head in more permanent ways. That kind of flipping worked out better for us in our revolution against England than in our Civil War. These events taught us the value of stepping back from historically unprecedented ledges.
Americans of late have been giving loud expression to a long list of things they don’t like about each other and the last makeover they started but didn’t finish a half-century ago. The outcome of our fights today will be as revealing as they are embarrassing to everyone who imagined they could recast our country in a way that privileged their favorite kind of Americans.
Their disappointment with the accommodations they strike will be palpable, but the middling results they achieve with all their pushing and shoving won’t be anything they can’t live with.
Anthropologists who have written about such moments in other cultures less “advanced” than our own show that people find ways to work around their seemingly irreconcilable differences without ever fully resolving them. Indeed, the patches and repairs people make have the unheralded effect of reinforcing rather than undermining the legitimacy of the practices and values they thought were fundamentally flawed.
For example…
White guilt and black pessimism do more good than putting cash into the pockets of professional shamers and handwringers. They give the rest of us who don’t feel guilty or powerless more time to make the world less racially unequal. Good news.
Regarding illegal immigration, the entrance requirements for future immigrants will remain stringent. Americans will applaud the continued detention and deportation of the few illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes. Good news.
All the people who came to the United States without being legally vetted and were locked up for a time will be released in numbers small enough to avoid serious media attention. Along with the several million other good people who snuck in but avoided capture, the former detainees will go to school, find gainful employment, pay their taxes, and stay out of trouble. Many will eventually become citizens. Good news.
Investigations into election tampering and Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential loss will come to an unceremonious conclusion the day after his second term ends. Many Americans will grumble about this, but there will also be some quiet partying, too. Good and bad news.
Congressional hearings into all the grifting accomplished by people tied to the Trump administration will end without anyone having to pay a dime back to the American taxpayers. Bad news, we’ll learn to live with.
New laws and regulations will be created in the hope that the kind of corruption practiced by President Trump will not be repeated for another 250 years. Good news, I hope we’ll live long enough to enjoy.
Show trials for people who allegedly vandalized the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, if they happen, will get big television viewer ratings. Good news.
Trials for pardoned Capitol insurrectionists who committed serious crimes after their release should get more attention, but won’t. Bad news.
We will continue to hear nothing from most of the people who were pardoned for crimes they committed in the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. They will keep their mouths shut and their heads down for the rest of their life. Good news.
The gold-gilded ornaments that Donald Trump had plastered all over the White House will be shipped to Mar-a-Lago, where the former president will sell them on eBay. Fun news.
American taxpayers end up paying for most of the new East Wing, the removal of the miniature gladiatorial arena that was built behind the White House, and the restoration of the White House rose garden. Bad news.
The Triumphal Arch was never built. Good news.
Trad wives and gay couples raise perfectly lovely children. Good but unsurprising news.
Trans men and women learn that most Americans can’t figure out who they used to be. No one gives a second thought to their use of “family bathrooms” or “unisex bathrooms” in public settings, businesses, and schools. Communities will sponsor athletic teams that have trans boys and girls just to show they can. Good news.
Budget deficits will be kicked down the road for someone else’s children to pay down. Bad news.
Federal agencies that had their budgets and employee ranks slashed during President Trump’s second term are getting some of the money and lost positions back. Good news.
Elite universities will buy their way out of DEI purgatory by competing for conservative scholars whose inflated salaries dwarf those of their liberal colleagues, who will think about suing their institutions for reverse discrimination but won’t be able to figure out who would pay for it or care. More fun news.
Okay. I’ve probably missed some ways that Americans will step back from the ledges they have been making noises about leaping off. But to the extent that my predictions pan out, the best and most important moral of the stories about us stepping away is this: everything we lost and took back, or had returned to us, will have happened without our government collapsing, civic traditions crumbling, or our people beating each other up.
The reason why is that the differences Americans have with each other really weren’t as irreconcilable as we made them out to be. The empty-sounding bromide that Americans have more that unites us than divides us turns out to be true, not just metaphorically but in fact.
Now that is really something to celebrate.
Daniel J. Monti (danieljmonti.com) is Professor of Sociology at Saint Louis University and the author of American Democracy and Disconsent: Liberalism and Illiberalism in Ferguson, Charlottesville, Black Lives Matter, and the Capitol Insurrection.