#1 Victorian uni for graduate employment1
#1 in the world for sport science2
#1 Victorian uni for course satisfaction3
NEXT UP ON this.
We’re now well into Donald Trump’s second term as president, and that means it’s not long before attention will begin to shift toward the 2028 presidential race.
Typically, by the spring before election day, political hopefuls will begin to test the waters about a primary run – and given that the US Constitution limits presidents to two terms, it would seem safe to rule Trump out as the Republican nominee.
Or can we?
Throughout his second term, Trump has sent mixed signals. In March 2025, he told NBC News that he wouldn’t rule out the possibility, hinting that ‘there are methods [by] which you could do it’. Just two months later, in another conversation with NBC News, he said he’d be a two-term president. Then, in August 2028, he muddied the waters again by saying in a CNBC interview that he’d like to run but that he ‘probably’ wouldn’t.
On paper, the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution appears to shut the door on a Trump third term. But Trump’s comments raise an intriguing question: could it be possible?
To unpack the legal and historical realities behind that question, we turned to Dr Zim Nwokora, a political scientist specialising in the comparative study of political institutions and constitutions.
Before we dive into the modern day, let’s wind back the clock to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
At the time, there were mixed views on whether the presidency should have a maximum number of terms. After much debate, the framers settled on four-year terms with no limit on how many times a person could be re-elected.
For more than 150 years, this wasn’t a problem. In fact, George Washington set an informal precedent for two terms that every president followed – that is, until Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented four consecutive terms.
In response, Congress moved to formalise a limit. The 22nd Amendment, approved by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951, set a two-term cap on the presidency.
With that foundation in place, the next question is whether the amendment leaves any room for a Trump third term.
The 22nd Amendment clearly prohibits Trump from serving a third term as president. But, as Nwokora points out, it doesn’t technically make it unlawful for him to run again. The key difference is that the amendment restricts a person from being elected more than twice, not appearing on the ballot.
If he did choose to run, Nwokora says the path to a Trump third term would hinge on two things: winning the election and successfully amending the Constitution before Inauguration Day.
‘The Constitution would need to have been amended prior to him taking office in order for his third term to happen,’ Nwokora says. ‘Securing a constitutional amendment requires a larger majority than winning the presidency, and a rather different political strategy.’
Even if he secured a victory at the polls, the amendment process is such a high hurdle that Nwokora describes the scenario as ‘quite unlikely.’ There’s also the question of voter psychology: some may decide it’s not worth it to back a candidate whose ability to serve depends on navigating so many obstacles.
There is, however, one more possible route to a Trump third term. ‘Another option would be to run for the vice presidency, in a ticket on which it would be widely acknowledged that he was the actual “boss” even though he’s listed as “No. 2”,’ says Nwokora. ‘In my reading, it seems unclear whether he would be constitutionally prohibited from doing that, and the question would likely end up before the Supreme Court for adjudication.’
Any amendment to the Constitution can, in theory, be removed by passing another amendment, but it’s a rare and difficult political feat. In fact, it has only happened once in US history: the 18th Amendment, which prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol and ushered in the Prohibition, was overturned by the 21st amendment.
Repealing the 22nd Amendment to allow a Trump third term would follow the same process. An amendment can be proposed in one of two ways:
Whichever route is taken, the amendment must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50). With all of these factors in mind, you can probably see why it’s not a frequent occurrence; there’s an enormous bar to clear.
While there have been no substantial efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment, Nwokora notes that several presidents have criticised it, including Harry Truman and Bill Clinton.
In short, the answer is no. A sitting president has no direct power to change the Constitution, including altering presidential term limits. The US system was designed with a strict separation of powers with checks and balances.
That’s why, even if a president personally supports scrapping the two-term cap, their role would be limited to persuasion – rallying lawmakers, party members and the public to back the idea.
While the US defines a term as four years and imposes a two-term limit for the presidency, it’s not a global standard.
Firstly, different countries have different political systems. In parliamentary systems – such as Australia’s – there typically aren’t term limits for the head of government. Prime ministers can serve indefinitely, as long as their party wins federal elections and they retain the support of their party and parliament.
Among countries that do have a presidential system of government, there are differences in term durations and limits. Presidents are limited to a single four-year term in Colombia, unlimited five-year terms in Suriname and one seven-year term in Armenia.
However, some nations have found ways around their own limits. In Russia, Vladimir Putin shifted to the role of prime minister before returning to the presidency. In Uganda, constitutional changes have allowed President Yoweri Musevini to remain in power for decades.
Given these examples, you might assume that term limits are important to the health of a democracy. But not always, says Nwokora.
‘Term limits are often regarded as a useful tool to ensure rotation at the top of the political system and to prevent drift into an elective dictatorship,’ explains Nwokora. ‘However, they are not failsafe for these purposes because they can be abolished, modified or worked around.
‘There is also an important line of criticism which sees term limits as a constraint on the public’s choice of candidates for high office. If citizens would like to see a successful president remain in power for an additional term, why should that preference be thwarted by an arbitrary term limit?’
While a Trump third term seems unlikely, it raises an interesting thought experiment about what it would take to make it possible – and what term limits mean for the stability and accountability of a democracy.
As Nwokora points out, term limits are not a perfect safeguard. But despite their vulnerabilities, they remain one of the structural barriers to the unchecked accumulation of executive power.
And in an era where political polarisation and populism are testing democratic institutions worldwide, the 22nd Amendment stands as a reminder that the health of a democracy depends as much on its rules as it does on the people willing to uphold them.
