In January, Congressman Andy Ogles, a Republican Representative for Tennessee, introduced a resolution to revise the 22nd Amendment, allowing President Trump and any future president to serve a new maximum of three terms. Now you may be wondering, under this resolution could former presidents Joe Biden or Barack Obama potentially run for a third term? The answer is a resounding no, as Rep. Ogles purposefully worded his resolution in order to allow President Trump, and only Trump among the living presidents, to serve a third term.
The language in the resolution singles out President Trump amongst the other living presidents, enabling him to run for a third term in 2028 should the resolution be passed. It states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms.” Along with former president Grover Cleveland, President Trump is the only president in history to serve two non-consecutive terms, meaning this resolution particularly prevents the other four living presidents, three of which are Democrats, from reaping its benefits.
Rep. Ogles’ resolution has been introduced during a tumultuous time in American politics marked by extreme polarization. In doing so, he expresses a deep disregard to the democratic norms that have been upheld by elected officials for centuries. A handful of presidents have considered running for a third term in the past, but most have not done so due to the precedent set by George Washington when he stepped down after two terms. Amidst the Great Depression and World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first and only president to serve more than two terms, being re-elected for a total of four terms. He was criticized by many for breaking the tradition set by Washington and followed by those after, but his actions during the dire circumstances of America’s economic and political landscape allowed him to receive popular support and serve two more terms. In response, the 22nd Amendment would be passed in 1951, signing into law a norm that had long been respected by presidents, but never officially, nor legally, barred presidents from serving more than two terms.
In their book “How Democracies Die,” Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt detail two kinds of unwritten and unspoken rules that have upheld democracy in America thus far, mutual toleration and institutional forbearance. Levitsky and Ziblatt describe mutual toleration as the acceptance of our rivals having “an equal right to exist, compete for power, and govern,” or put simply, “collective willingness to agree to disagree.” In his speech to the House, Rep. Ogles threw mutual toleration out the window, expressing a deep distrust, and more so, a dislike, for the opposition. He depicts Trump’s administration as America’s saving grace in response to the last four years under Biden’s democratic administration, calling to “provide President Trump with every resource necessary to correct the disastrous course set by the Biden administration.” Rep. Ogles doubles down, claiming the “Biden Administration has subjected Americans to relentless abuses that will take a decade to correct.” With this statement, one may question whether Ogles is calling for President Trump to stay in power for a decade to correct these so-called abuses, arousing fear of taking steps towards autocracy.
The second norm, institutional forbearance, Levitsky and Ziblatt say “can be thought of as avoiding actions that, while respecting the letter of the law, obviously violate its spirit.” Looking back at FDR’s presidency, it’s evident that he violated the democratic spirit by running for two additional terms, thus prompting the ratification of the 22nd Amendment. To call for a revision of the 22nd Amendment likewise violates this democratic norm. Rep. Ogles resolution specifically seeks to place more power in the hands of President Trump, giving him a privilege that other living presidents are purposefully deprived of.
The concept of revising the 22nd Amendment to allow an incumbent to stay in power isn’t necessarily new or unique, with several government officials calling to do so since its ratification in 1951. Former presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were both called to serve a third term, in the case that Congress revised the 22nd Amendment to allow it. However, both rejected support to change the term-limit for their own use. President Trump’s repeated offhanded comments and jokes about being willing to serve more than two terms are a cause for concern though. In a 2020 speech, Trump said, “We are going to win four more years. And then after that, we’ll go for another four years.” In January, just a week after his inauguration, President Trump stated, “It will be the greatest honor of my life to serve not once but twice — or three or four times.” He went on to say that it would in fact be twice, however, it’s clear the idea, and the possibility, of running for a third term is not lost on him.
The question that is now called into question is to what extent will President Trump act on this matter? Can we expect him to reject calls to stay in power till 2032? Or will he continue to ignore democratic norms and use his power and the support of the Republican majority Congress to bring Rep. Ogle’s resolution to realization?
Hello Johnathan! Your piece highlights the dangers of Rep. Andy Ogles’ resolution regarding the 22nd amendment. It is quite frightening to know that there are people in office that will change amendments for the betterment of one body: the executive, aka. Donald Trump. This act of selective rule-changing connects with democratic backsliding as legal frameworks are being manipulated in order to consolidate power under a democratic facade. I can’t help but think about how the Constitution has outlined ways for the Executive branch to avoid the entrenchment of power. Regardless of this, Ogles’ resolution endangers democratic safeguards.
Hey Johnathan! Your analysis of Rep. Ogles’ resolution is as deeply interesting as it is concerning, especially in the broader context of democratic erosion. What stands out most is how this move isn’t just about extending Trump’s eligibility—it’s about reshaping the rules of democracy to benefit a single individual! A hallmark of democratic backsliding. By selectively rewriting the 22nd Amendment, Ogles is setting a dangerous precedent where laws meant to limit power can instead be altered to entrench it. We both used How Democracies Die by Levitsky and Ziblatt as references in our posts. It is riveting to see how both the American and Georgian governments are experiencing democratic backsliding due to a lack of mutual toleration and institutional forbearance. Do you think Congress will treat this resolution as a serious threat or dismiss it as political posturing?
Hi Josephine, thanks for your insightful comment! One can only hope that Congress will do the right thing and treat Rep. Ogle’s resolution as a threat to democratic values. However, with the intense polarization in America at this time, and the Republican majority in Congress, I do fear that Rep. Ogles could gain traction with this resolution. I believe it’s imperative now that our government officials choose to side with safeguarding democracy over things that will provide their party with more power.