Trump won't rule out seeking a third term in the White House, tells NBC News 'there are methods' for doing so
Source: NBC
President Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility of seeking a third term in the White House, which is prohibited by the Constitution under the 22nd Amendment, saying in an exclusive interview with NBC News that there were methods for doing so and clarifying that he was “not joking.”
“A lot of people want me to do it,” Trump said in a Sunday-morning phone call with NBC News, referring to his allies. “But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in the administration.”
-snip-
Amending the Constitution to abolish the two-term limit would be exceedingly difficult, requiring either a two-thirds vote of Congress or two-thirds of the states agreeing to call a constitutional convention to propose changes. Either route would then require ratification from three-quarters of the states.
The president pointed to his poll numbers, saying that “a lot of people would like me to” hold office for a third term.
-snip-
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-third-term-white-house-methods-rcna198752
Trump was asked about a possible method where Vance would run for president and then "pass the role to Trump" and Trump said that was one possible method, added that "there are others" - but said "No" when asked to share any of the others.
And the Trump-as-VP method would be unconstitutional, too, since his two terms as president woud mean he couldn't run as VP because he can't become president again.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
choie
(6,525 posts)Hope he understands that Obama will then be able to run a third time as well.
highplainsdem
(59,632 posts)presidents who'd served two consecutive terms, so Obama wouldn't be eligible.
None of this will get anywhere, of course, and it's likely Trump's real plan is dictatorship for life, once he thinks he has the military behind him.
NotHardly
(2,557 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)Hell,if it was nto for term limits, Clinton would be president...BILL CLINTON
sadly,I would prefer it toTrump
Hieronymus Phact
(717 posts)Put him back and give him 3 interns!
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)Cuban!
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)He's the most popular politician out there and rarely speaks up. Why does someone actually think he'd run again?
mahina
(20,334 posts)He put it on the line, again. I do not agree that what you said is factual. I do agree with your conclusion though, he does not want to run for president again.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)That would include the time he campaigned for Harris' campaign. Literally my point.
It is factual. How many times did Obama speak up during Trump's first term (outside the 2020 election when he, again, showed back up)? How many times has Obama spoken up since Trump took office a second time? He spoke up about the Harvard ordeal because that's his school. But guess how many times Obama has mentioned the El Salvador prisons?
Zero.
Or Abrego Garcia?
Also zero.
It's clear he is not motivated to go after Trump nearly as much as say someone like Hillary, who speaks out on every major topic all the time.
Obama continues to play things very low-key. I think that's proof enough he would never run for a third term if given the opportunity.
dweller
(27,776 posts)All of them live inside his head
✌🏻
Response to dweller (Reply #2)
wyn borkins This message was self-deleted by its author.
johnnyfins
(3,385 posts)He knows full well it's never going to happen. He is saying this to get the press to stop talking about signal, doge, the midterms, and other assorted disasters.
Polybius
(21,394 posts)If the 22nd gets repealed before the 2028 primaries, he gets to run again. That's the only way. But it won't happen.
Intractable
(1,571 posts)Once a politician is labelled as such, they can't get anything done.
Healthwise, he won't be up for a third term.
BonnieJW
(3,077 posts)the nelm
(235 posts)
ProudMNDemocrat
(20,551 posts)Go fuck yourself! You won't last this final term if you are lucky to escape health scares.
It would be years before a Constitutional Amendment to be ratified.
SergeStorms
(19,904 posts)laughs at your quaint "Constitutional Amendment." The far-right has purchased all three arms of the government. They don't intend to give it back to "the people."
Vinca
(53,220 posts)
TommyT139
(2,134 posts)NickB79
(20,222 posts)If he lives another 4 years, he'll be a senile vegetable at the rate he's going now.
Harker
(17,285 posts)Evolve Dammit
(21,419 posts)homegirl
(1,917 posts)a senile (demented) piece of garbage!
lastlib
(27,418 posts)Vertically or horizontally, it's up to him, but he goes.
Captain Zero
(8,711 posts)him go as well.
Traildogbob
(12,445 posts)“I like the way you talk”, umm”!
JoseBalow
(9,088 posts)Fundraising for office is the most lucrative thing he has ever done. No way he's ever gonna walk away from free cash.
Escape
(368 posts)I am sure he is also confident that in the next few years, he will win The Nobel Prize, an Oscar and the Kentucky Derby.
Hopefully, the press won't indulge him too much in these wet dreams. We don't really need to hear about it..
tanyev
(48,578 posts)
robbob
(3,739 posts)I was going to say “without a horse. Horses are for losers…”. 😂
valleyrogue
(2,524 posts)andym
(6,049 posts)according to the unitary executive theory of some extreme right wingers, the President is basically king for 4 years.
Abstractartist
(409 posts)Just more bullshit his MAGAt base wants to hear. I’ll say most likely most of the republican congress don’t like trump, but tolerate him. You would not get enough votes in either house or senate to get a third term. I’m not convinced he will finish this term.
Irish_Dem
(79,367 posts)tavernier
(14,209 posts)That would be worth the show. Virile versus Senile.
Evolve Dammit
(21,419 posts)
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)Dude can't even be bothered to release a statement about Trump - and people think he'll decide to run for a third term?
Wiz Imp
(8,743 posts)It is clearly unconstitutional with no chance of being changed in a couple years. Why would he want to run again when he could lose? If he doesn't want to give up power, he will try to circumvent the constitution that way but it makes no sense to run again. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Now if you want to claim he will try to stay in office beyond 2028, then I will agree, but he will never go through another election.
Personally, I think there is a 95% chance he is dead by 2028.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)The constitution allows for enough ambiguity as it relates to the 22nd Amendment and the 12th that I could absolutely see the Supreme Court ruling in his favor if he decided to run as Vice President with Vance on the ticket as President.
The 22nd Amendment was worded just poorly enough that it can be manipulated in an argument since it only stipulates that a person cannot be elected to the office of President more than twice:
Here is how the Amendment reads:
Elected is the key word here because in this scenario, Trump technically wouldn't be elected president. He would assume the presidency through the line of succession. In this scenario, he would be elected to the office of VICE President. An example that would certainly be used is that Gerald Ford was not elected president. Hell, he wasn't even elected Vice President. He assumed the office, though, when Nixon resigned.
Now how does that work with the 12th Amendment, which forbids those who are not eligible for the presidency to serve as president?
Simple: the 22nd Amendment only discusses elections - not service requirements as outlined in the 12th (age and citizenship). It can be argued that because the 22nd Amendment only specifies those elected to the office of Presidency, and not appointed or assuming the office through the line of succession, that Trump qualifies for the presidency as he meets the eligibility qualifications of age and citizenship.
Would it be a successful argument? I'm inclined to say no as the intent of the 22nd Amendment is pretty clear. But with this Supreme Court? I'm not confident at all they wouldn't rule the loophole is legal and therefore Trump running as VP does not disqualify him from the presidency.
The biggest issue would be how the Supreme Court understands 'constitutionally ineligible' to serve. It does say in the 22nd Amendment that the Vice President must be constitutionally eligible to be president. But again, whether Trump (or any other two term serving president) is eligible would come down to the 22nd Amendment and the interpretation of 'elected'. The case would be that since Trump is not being elected to the office of Presidency, as it clearly is outlined in the 22nd Amendment, therefore his being on the ticket would not make him constitutionally ineligible. Flimsy interpretation of the law? Absolutely. One they'll try? If he decides to go that course ... absolutely again. One the Supreme Court will rule in his favor over? I wouldn't put it past 'em.
Irish_Dem
(79,367 posts)And not rig another election.
Comedy gold to think otherwise.
Joinfortmill
(19,907 posts)
bronxiteforever
(11,062 posts)
Grins
(9,214 posts)BOTH of them.
right off a bridge or 10th floor roof!
Turbineguy
(39,794 posts)They love his shit sandwiches.
AkFemDem
(2,508 posts)We shouldn't want him to be impeached or eat too many cheeseburgers because "Vance would be worse than Trump" 
AllyCat
(18,463 posts)Bluetus
(2,188 posts)All these things come down to who is going to stop him? The police, the secret service, the military, the DoJ are all under the executive branch.
The fact that something is illegal or unconstitutional really doesn't mean much these days.
Bluetus
(2,188 posts)says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The intent is obvious. If you aren't 35 years old or have already served your limit of terms, you can't be VP. However, the law often comes down to trickery and pretzel reasoning, kind of the meaning of the word "is".
Literally, the 12th and 25th are mostly about ELECTING POTUS and VP. So one could argue that Trump would not be "constitutionally eligible" to be ELECTED as VP, but he could be appointed because the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit that. This is the "other scenario" Trump is talking about. He doesn't want to say it out loud because it is such a cynical, farcical idea. But briefly, it would go like this:
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)The first is the option floated in the article: run as Vance's running mate, Vance resigns and he assumes the presidency. This is probably the most realistic only because the language in the Constitution leads an opening. In the 22nd Amendment, it stipulates: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice....
The term elected is important because in this scenario, Trump technically isn't being elected to the office of President, but rather the office of Vice President. It's definitely exploiting the language of the amendment but I wouldn't trust the Supreme Court to uphold the intent of it.
But Ford was an unelected president.
Its relationship with the 12th Amendment, which defines who is constitutionally eligible for the office, would surely be where this battle would be fought in such scenario.
I'm not convinced the Court wouldn't rule in Trump's favor if that's the path he takes.
The other option is just running anyway and daring the courts to stop him. My guess is that the courts would rule he's ineligible but then what? It seems most Republicans will blindly support him. If the Court rules in early 2028 he's not eligible, the party can still make him their nominee. It then falls to the states to ban him from the ballot. I'm guessing every blue state will but what about Republican states or states with Republican legislatures? Will they vote to put him on the ballot and if there's enough for 270 electoral votes... what happens next?
The Courts can rule. Democrats can sue. Hell, Chief Justice Roberts could refuse the oath be given... it would throw the country into a legit constitutional crisis and Democrats couldn't even toss the electors of states that voted Trump without a majority in both the House and Senate (in order to toss electoral votes, during the certification, an objection must have both a signature of a House and Senate member before they debate and then vote as separate bodies and at that time, a majority must be reached in both chambers to toss the electoral votes) - or they'd have to hope for a good amount of cross-over votes but I'm not sure they could (and it's not a good bet that the Democrats have a majority in the Senate by January, 2029 but maybe).
Regardless, that last option is the messiest. So, I'm inclined to believe they'll aim for the first if they choose.
Of course, the cleanest is the most unlikely: just repeal the 22nd but the votes aren't there for that.
PortTack
(35,810 posts)None of this is going to happen anyway
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)Will it? I'm not sure but the language of the 22nd is not necessarily incompatible with the 12th Amendment. If his eligibility is only limited based on the 22nd, the language leaves an opening as it only mentions those who are elected to the office of the President. He would not be elected in this scenario, but elevated through the line of succession, and since the 22nd Amendment only concerns qualifications for elections, he would not be ineligible according to the 12th.
That's not to say I agree with that interpretation but that will be the argument.
Do you trust this Supreme Court to make the right call? I don't.
DFW
(59,685 posts)By his own definition, this is already the third time he has been elected.
WA-03 Democrat
(3,328 posts)Maybe he will just take the Sharpie out and cross out President Biden.
Klarkashton
(4,647 posts)Karasu
(2,003 posts)rambler_american
(926 posts)Obama can run again, amirite?
homegirl
(1,917 posts)is Donald Drunk, Drugged or Demented?
claudette
(5,455 posts)LEGAL methods. He’s too old and decrepit anyway to run again
mac56
(17,814 posts)
liberalhistorian
(20,897 posts)Juan Peron in Evita, during the song "A New Argentina", would certainly apply to the Slobfather's autocratic dictatorial attitude here:
"How annoying that we have to hold elections for our cause; the inconvenience, having to get a majority
If normal methods of persuasion fail to bring us applause, there are other ways of establishing authority!
Martin Eden
(15,314 posts)Which is what he intended from the start.
WestMichRad
(2,886 posts)… just cancel the Constitution. That eliminates the courts and those radical judges who would say he can’t do that. Then he can just appoint himself emperor for life and get on with totally destroying our country.
… I think (and hope)…
COL Mustard
(7,929 posts)16-28 would suit me just fine.
Eugene
(66,732 posts)Once more, the Donvict insists that the plain language of the law isn't clear enough to block what he is trying.
jgmiller
(669 posts)Concentrate on the crimes he is committing not his fantasy of crimes in the future. We need to stop jumping at every idiotic thing that comes out of his mouth.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)This feels like ignoring the warning signs until it's too late.
jgmiller
(669 posts)I'm not saying it's not real in his mind and his supporters but you can't win a war by fighting a battle that hasn't even begun yet or might not ever begin. This is what he wants it's what he's always done he throws so much stuff at his opponents that they don't know what to go after so they just jump from one thing to the next. This is why he wins all the time, we need to be smarter than this.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)So that when it finally happens, and he announces, 50% of the country will shrug.
PSPS
(15,195 posts)
LetMyPeopleVote
(174,270 posts)Believe or not, this issue was discussed a while back when there were discussions about Bill Clinton running as vice-president on a Gore-Clinton ticket. The thought was that Gore would resign after the election and President Clinton could serve a third term. This concept was discussed and rejected.
The three ways that trump could run for a third term (i) a constitutional amendment, (ii) trump running as vice president and then have his running mate resign and (iii) trump becoming speaker of the house and then the POTUS and Vice President resigning.
A constitutional amendment is not likely. https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3380306 It is unlikely that such an amendment could get through congress much less be ratified by the required number of states.
The third option has so many variables that it is also unlikely. trump would have to be appointed/elected as Speaker and then both the POTUS and the VP resign. This option does not have the 12th Amendment issue but has so many variables that it is unlikely
The 12th Amendment is clear that no one can run as VP if they are not eligible to run as POTUS. I agree with the legal analysis set forth below.
Link to tweet
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=149214
Derek Muller, a professor of election law at Notre Dame, noted that the 12th Amendment, which was ratified in 1804, says “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
Muller said that indicates that if Trump is not eligible to run for president again because of the 22nd Amendment, he is not eligible to run for vice president, either.
“I don’t think there’s any ‘one weird trick’ to getting around presidential term limits,” Muller said.
In addition, pursuing a third term would require extraordinary acquiescence by federal and state officials, not to mention the courts and voters themselves.
He suggested that Trump is talking about a third term for political reasons to “show as much strength as possible.”
Now, there’s no question there is potential constitutional ambiguity here, as Professor Brian Kalt has discussed. But scholars like Professor Michael Dorf a quarter century ago were bolstering the idea of a Gore-Clinton ticket in 2000:
Thus, if Clinton were to be elected Vice President, and ascend to the Presidency based on, for example, Mr. Gore’s resignation, then nothing unconstitutional would have occurred. Clinton would have been elected to the Presidency only twice — though he would serve as President thrice. Under the Twenty-Second Amendment, that is perfectly permissible.
. . . But in seeking the Vice-Presidency — a job, in John Nance Garner’s unforgettable phrase, “not worth a bucket of warm spit” — Clinton would hardly be bidding for dictatorial powers.
Similar claims were made by Professor Brian Gray and elsewhere. But in my earlier scholarship, I found this interpretation weaker than the one advanced by Matthew Franck:
It follows from the 22nd Amendment that Bill Clinton, being “constitutionally ineligible” to be elected president, is ineligible to become president by another route. He is, in short, ineligible to be president, and therefore ineligible to become vice president under the 12th amendment.
I agree. But it’s worth noting that if–and I think it’s still a big if–such a gambit arose, there are tremendous complexities in its implementation. Not the least of which is the fact that after Trump v. Anderson, I believe the Court expressly left open the opportunity for states to review qualifications of presidential (and vice-presidential) candidates outside of the 14th Amendment and exclude candidates on that basis. Vice presidential nominations and ballot access deadlines for them occur in late summer, giving an exceedingly truncated window for review–and, frankly, one that may leave a major party without a vice presidential candidate on the ballot in several states with the approval of the United States Supreme Court. (Setting aside, of course, the will power of someone like J.D. Vance relinquishing the presidency.)
I really enjoy Professor Hasen's election law blog. This article made me smile.
Finally, I doubt that trump will live long enough for these options to be necessary.
EllieBC
(3,602 posts)All that sodium and fat need to start working stat. It’s only March. It’s only March and most of us already have a fucking ulcer from this shit.
Hekate
(100,131 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(174,270 posts)The 22nd Amendment says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” The incumbent president doesn't fully accept that.
If you're just catching up on news from the weekend, Trump said he's "not joking" about possibly trying to pursue a third term.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-03-31T11:58:35.374Z
The Constitution says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." Trump apparently doesn't accept that. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...
The Constitution says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." Trump apparently doesn't accept that.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/constitution-trump-says-s-not-joking-eyeing-third-term-rcna198827
President Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility of seeking a third term in the White House, which is prohibited by the Constitution under the 22nd Amendment, saying in an exclusive interview with NBC News that there were methods for doing so and clarifying that he was “not joking.” ... “A lot of people want me to do it,” Trump said in a Sunday-morning phone call with NBC News, referring to his allies.
.....In fact, in his interview with NBC News, Trump was hardly subtle. “I’m not joking,” he said, adding that there are “methods” in which he could pursue such a goal.
NBC News asked about a possible scenario in which Vice President JD Vance would run for office and then pass the role to Trump. Trump responded that “that’s one” method. “But there are others, too,” Trump added. Asked to share another method, Trump simply responded “no.”
Hours after the NBC News report reached the public, the president chatted with reporters aboard Air Force One and dodged a series of questions on the topic, though he claimed that “people” have asked him to run for a third term — which he said would be a fourth term “in a way” because his 2020 race was “totally rigged.” (It was not rigged; he lost fair and square, and he’s been lying uncontrollably about this for more than four years.).....
I won’t pretend to know where this is headed or the degree to which the president is prepared to defy constitutional law. But Scott Cummings, a professor of legal ethics at the UCLA School of Law, made a comment on "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Friday that stood out for me.
Commenting on autocracies around the world that have consolidated power, Cummings noted that in none of these countries “do leaders do all the things that Trump is doing, take aim at all of these independent institutions, and then just walk away.” Rather, the professor added, authoritarians take these steps because they intend “to stay in power permanently.”
trump needs to stay in power and will try to stay in power anyway that he can
LetMyPeopleVote
(174,270 posts)
Collimator
(2,073 posts). . . Then I think AOC has a chance.
Despite the heartbreak of the last election, I'd like to believe that she could win. After all, she's a couple of shades lighter than Harris, so it could happen.
Note: Last remark is a joke. Not a funny one, or one that I believe in/approve of, but a bitter comment disguised in a quip.
bucolic_frolic
(53,792 posts)There is a peak before the fall.
Callie1979
(1,084 posts)Sorry but there's really NO other way to put a stop to this.
Brother Buzz
(39,512 posts)Cha-ching!
Fichefinder
(394 posts)Just like Putin