Steve Bannon's controversial remarks about Donald Trump's potential future in the White House set off a fiery debate about presidential term limits.
According to Daily Mail, former White House strategist Steve Bannon suggested at a New York Young Republicans Club event that Trump could seek a third presidential term by exploiting an alleged loophole in the 22nd Amendment.
The explosive theory hinges on the interpretation that the constitutional amendment's language doesn't explicitly specify "consecutive" terms. Bannon cited conservative Republican lawyer Mike Davis while promoting this interpretation. The suggestion drew enthusiastic approval from the gathered crowd, highlighting the continued strong support for Trump among his base.
Speaking at the weekend gala, Bannon laid out his vision for Trump's political future. He referenced Trump's potential third victory and second term, implying that the 2020 election result was invalid despite Biden's win by approximately 7 million votes. The former chief White House strategist made light of his recent release from federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut, where he served time for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena.
When pressed about whether he was merely attempting to provoke a reaction, Bannon firmly denied this characterization. He told Daily Mail on Tuesday that he was "NOT" trolling with his comments about a potential third term. The emphatic response suggests a serious intent behind the controversial proposal.
Mike Davis, the conservative lawyer cited by Bannon, later distanced himself from the interpretation on social media platform X. Davis dismissed the idea as trolling and made a pointed reference to Obama, stating, "Only Obama gets a third term, with his puppet Biden."
The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 following Franklin Roosevelt's unprecedented four terms, explicitly limits presidents to two terms in office. The amendment's text leaves little room for interpretation regarding consecutive versus non-consecutive terms. Legal experts have consistently maintained that the amendment's restrictions are clear and binding.
Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and great-great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, addressed the possibility of circumventing these restrictions. He explained:
I don't think there's any realistic possibility that the 22nd Amendment could be repealed. That would take another amendment (like the 21st, repealing the 18th) and I don't think it would get 2/3 of both houses of congress, much less 3/4 of the states.
Trump himself has previously entertained the idea of seeking a third term, though his public statements have been inconsistent. During a recent address to House Republicans, Trump remarked:
I suspect I won't be running again, unless you do something. Unless you say, 'He's so good, we have to just figure it out.'
The debate over a potential third Trump term reflects broader tensions within American politics. Constitutional scholars emphasize that any attempt to circumvent the 22nd Amendment would require a formal amendment process, demanding supermajorities in Congress and widespread state support.
The current system provides a clear mechanism for removing the two-term limit, but it requires approval by two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of states. This high threshold makes any constitutional change extremely unlikely in the current political climate.
Trump addressed the matter directly in an April interview with Time magazine, stating his opposition to challenging the amendment. He emphasized his focus on serving "four years and do a great job" rather than pursuing constitutional changes.
Steve Bannon, a key figure in Trump's political orbit, sparked controversy by proposing a strategy for Donald Trump to seek an unprecedented third presidential term through what he claims is a constitutional loophole. The suggestion, made at a New York Young Republicans Club event, centers on an interpretation of the 22nd Amendment that questions whether terms must be consecutive. Legal experts emphasize that such an interpretation would likely face insurmountable challenges in both Congress and the courts.
