What if a former president claimed there was a loophole that could let him run for a third term—despite a constitutional amendment saying otherwise? That’s exactly what Donald Trump suggested in a recent interview, hinting at the possibility of returning to the White House again after 2028.
It’s not the first time he’s flirted with the idea of overstaying the traditional two-term limit, but this time, the framing was different: less of a joke, more of a “we’ll see.” Trump pointed to vague public support and teased the existence of a legal workaround—without offering specifics.
Table of Contents
What Trump Said
During a recent appearance on The All-In Podcast, Donald Trump made a remark that quickly set off legal and political alarm bells. The former president floated the idea that a “loophole” could allow him to run for a third term, even though the U.S. Constitution clearly limits presidents to two terms. Without elaborating on what the loophole was, Trump vaguely suggested, “You know, a lot of people are saying it, and we’re looking into it.” The comment was delivered casually, but the implication behind it was anything but light.
Trump’s use of the phrase “a lot of people” has long been a rhetorical tool—one he uses to signal popularity or legitimacy without providing evidence. This time, the context was particularly pointed. The former president hinted at an undefined mechanism that might permit him to run again, beyond what’s typically allowed under the 22nd Amendment. While he didn’t clarify whether he was joking, testing boundaries, or floating a trial balloon, the statement was left hanging, deliberately open-ended.
The interview itself was informal and largely favorable to Trump, allowing him space to speak freely and guide the narrative. It wasn’t a confrontational exchange with tough follow-ups or legal pushback. As a result, the claim went largely unchallenged in real time. But once the clip circulated online, legal scholars, journalists, and political commentators began parsing his words with more scrutiny—especially given the stakes of the upcoming 2024 election and his enduring influence over Republican voters.
The Constitution and the 22nd Amendment
The U.S. Constitution places a firm limit on presidential terms through the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency. The amendment clearly states: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” There is no ambiguity in the language, and legal consensus for decades has confirmed that this cap applies regardless of whether the terms are served consecutively or not.
Legal scholars have repeatedly affirmed that the amendment offers no back door for a third term, and there’s no credible interpretation under which a former president could legally seek a third election victory. Trump, who already served from 2017 to 2021, is eligible to run in 2024 for a second term. That’s entirely lawful. But once that term ends—if he were to win—his eligibility would be exhausted. The Constitution doesn’t make exceptions based on popularity, demand, or interpretation.
That said, history shows that constitutional norms can become political flashpoints when challenged repeatedly. What once seemed ironclad can start to appear malleable if enough people in power question or test it. The danger lies not just in the legal text being altered, but in public perception of what is possible. By suggesting a “loophole,” Trump might be less concerned with the legal reality and more focused on keeping the idea alive in the public imagination—a tactic not unfamiliar in his political approach.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal experts were quick to point out that Trump’s suggestion lacks any basis in constitutional law. Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General, stated bluntly in a previous interview: “There is no loophole. The 22nd Amendment is very clear.” Others in the legal community echoed that sentiment, noting that even a creative legal argument would face insurmountable hurdles in court, especially at the Supreme Court level, where precedent and originalist readings of the Constitution often hold sway.
There’s also no indication that any formal legal challenge has been filed or is even being considered by Trump’s legal team regarding a third-term bid. While he might privately discuss strategy with close advisers, the public-facing comments appear to be more about rhetoric than legal action. “This isn’t about filing lawsuits,” said University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck. “It’s about keeping certain ideas in the mix to test the political temperature.” That perspective reflects a broader trend in American politics, where legal impossibilities are sometimes presented as hypothetical possibilities—intended to shift public narratives rather than policy.
In practical terms, any attempt to seek a third term would face immediate resistance—not only from legal institutions but also from bipartisan critics who view the two-term limit as a fundamental pillar of U.S. democracy. It’s worth noting that even leaders with significant power rarely manage to alter term limits without triggering public backlash or constitutional crises. In the U.S., the odds of that happening remain exceedingly slim. But the suggestion alone reveals how quickly political discourse can spiral from fringe theory to mainstream topic when amplified by a public figure with a massive platform.
Trump’s History With ‘Jokes’ About Staying in Power
This is far from the first time Trump has floated the idea of staying in office beyond what the law allows. During his presidency, he occasionally joked at rallies and in interviews about serving more than two terms. In 2019, he shared a tweet jokingly suggesting he might stay “for ten or fourteen years,” later insisting it was sarcasm. But those moments, though brushed off as humor, sparked genuine concern from critics about how seriously he viewed the limits of presidential power.
He also posted a video in 2020 with a mock campaign sign that read “Trump 4EVA,” further blurring the line between joke and message. Critics argued that even if delivered tongue-in-cheek, these comments contributed to a culture of disregard for institutional norms. Supporters, meanwhile, often treated them as trolling or entertainment. But political scientists have long warned that repeated “jokes” about authoritarian behavior can desensitize the public and normalize ideas once considered unacceptable.
The timing and frequency of these statements matter. When leaders consistently push boundaries—whether seriously or rhetorically—they create space for more extreme proposals to gain traction. Trump’s recent remark about a third term may not be a formal declaration, but it fits into a broader pattern. By frequently testing the limits of what’s “allowed” in public discourse, he continues to reshape the political landscape—even when the law itself hasn’t changed.
Public and Political Reactions
So far, there has been no official response from major Republican leaders regarding Trump’s third-term suggestion. That silence can be interpreted in multiple ways: as discomfort, disinterest, or strategic avoidance. Some GOP figures have previously expressed fatigue with Trump’s more provocative rhetoric, but few are willing to confront him directly, given his strong base of support. On the Democratic side, responses have been more direct, with commentators calling the comment alarming and irresponsible, especially in a moment of heightened distrust in democratic institutions.
Online, the reaction has been predictably polarized. Trump supporters often interpret these moments as part of his anti-establishment appeal—challenging norms, triggering opponents, and refusing to play by conventional rules. Critics see it as another red flag, a reminder of his disregard for democratic boundaries. For politically independent or undecided voters, the cumulative effect of these remarks may be more subtle: planting seeds of doubt, confusion, or apathy toward institutional rules.
Public trust in democratic systems is already fragile. According to a 2023 Pew Research survey, only 16% of Americans say they trust the federal government to do what is right “just about always.” Comments like Trump’s feed into broader concerns about erosion of norms and misuse of power. Even if such statements are dismissed as unserious, they contribute to a political atmosphere where foundational rules begin to feel optional—or at least open to reinterpretation.
Political Theater or Serious Strategy?
At this stage, Trump’s remark about a third term seems unlikely to evolve into a legal challenge—but its political utility shouldn’t be underestimated. Comments like these work to dominate media cycles, provoke reactions, and energize a segment of his base that thrives on challenging the status quo. Whether or not he believes in the feasibility of such a move, the idea of a third term becomes part of the broader narrative he’s crafting around grievance, power, and resistance to traditional norms.
For Trump, pushing boundaries has always been part of the strategy. His political rise was marked by statements others wouldn’t dare say, and he’s continued that approach well past his presidency. Suggesting a third term may be legally futile, but it’s rhetorically potent—especially in an election season where he’s aiming to contrast himself sharply with the “establishment” and portray himself as a victim of unfair rules or systems.
The question is less about whether Trump will attempt to secure a third term—it’s nearly impossible under current law—and more about what these comments reveal. They tell us how he intends to shape the narrative in the lead-up to 2024, how he engages with legal boundaries, and how he tests public reaction to provocative possibilities. And in a media environment that often rewards boldness over accuracy, even baseless ideas can find surprising traction.
