In 1947, after Republicans regained control of Congress, they pursued a constitutional amendment to limit presidents to two terms, motivated by lingering unease over Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency. Representative John Jennings of Tennessee argued passionately on the House floor that the 22nd Amendment was essential to prevent any individual with excessive ambition from monopolizing the presidency.
Jennings warned that without strict term limits, a president supported by a compliant Congress and judiciary could dismantle constitutional safeguards and manipulate the political system to secure repeated re-election. Such unchecked power, he cautioned, could effectively elevate a president to monarchical status, beyond the reach of the Constitution’s checks and balances.
Since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951, although some politicians have occasionally chafed at its restrictions, no sitting president openly contemplated bypassing it—until recent years. Jennings’s foresight appears strikingly relevant today as former President Trump, known for his ambitious nature, repeatedly references the prospect of serving a third term, while commanding significant influence over many Congressional Republicans.
Following his re-election last November, Trump remarked that he might not run again unless urged to do so by supporters convinced of his effectiveness. Initially met with laughter from Republican lawmakers, he later insisted he was serious, alluding to potential legal avenues that could enable a third term.
More recently, Trump appeared to both retreat from and reaffirm the idea. He acknowledged that, to his knowledge, the Constitution prohibits a third term but also asserted that ‘there are ways of doing it.’ Meanwhile, merchandise on his official website promoting ‘Trump 2028’ continues to be sold, featuring slogans encouraging the rewriting of the rules.
Some Congressional Republicans have responded with mild disagreement or dismissed the notion as a jest. Senate Majority Leader John Thune remarked that such a scenario would require a constitutional amendment and suggested Trump might be engaging in playful banter, testing public reaction.
However, this casual response understates the seriousness of the issue. Historically, Trump has employed provocative statements to normalize controversial ideas, such as challenging election outcomes, pushing boundaries to assess which limits are enforced. His repeated allusions to a third term suggest a genuine desire to extend his tenure and acclimate the public to the concept.
Beyond this, Trump’s tenure has demonstrated a disregard for constitutional constraints. He has at times ignored judicial rulings, enacted immigration policies without due process, and attempted to curtail birthright citizenship via executive orders. These actions collectively imply a preference for unchecked presidential authority.
The proper response from political leaders—especially Republicans in Congress and state governments—is not to dismiss these musings but to reaffirm the clarity of the law: no individual may serve more than two elected presidential terms.
Specifically, the 22nd Amendment prohibits any person from being elected president more than twice. This has sparked debate about potential loopholes, such as a term-limited president running for vice president and ascending to the presidency if the sitting president resigns—a scenario Trump himself has mentioned as a possible strategy.
Nonetheless, the 12th Amendment appears to close this loophole by stating that anyone constitutionally ineligible to be president cannot serve as vice president. Together, these provisions make it legally impossible for a former two-term president to extend service beyond eight years.
Republican lawmakers and conservative legal experts often invoke the original intent of the Constitution’s framers, which is clear in this context: to limit presidents to two terms. During the 1947 debate, Representative Edward McCowen of Ohio summarized this intent succinctly, stating, ‘Eight years is long enough for a good president, and four years is too long for a bad one.’
While some politicians from both parties have occasionally entertained repealing the 22nd Amendment, including figures like Harry Truman and Mitch McConnell, they never suggested it could be ignored or circumvented without formal legal processes. If advocates of extending presidential terms believe there is sufficient political support, the constitutional path is clear: pursue an amendment through Congress and the states. Ignoring or undermining constitutional law is not an option—it is the foundation of the country’s governance.
