In a development that has sent ripples through the American political landscape, Steve Bannon, former White House chief strategist and close ally of Donald Trump, has publicly declared that Trump "has a plan" to return as president in 2028. This bold assertion, made in a video interview with The Economist on October 24, 2025, comes despite the US Constitution’s 22nd Amendment, which explicitly limits presidents to two elected terms. Bannon’s remarks, coupled with Trump’s own hints and public gestures, have reignited fierce debates about constitutional boundaries, democratic norms, and the durability of American institutions in the face of rising populist ambitions.
Bannon’s comments were nothing if not provocative. He asserted, “Trump would find a way to defy the Constitution,” and insisted, “people ought to get used to it.” According to The Economist, Bannon further teased that there were “many different alternatives” to keep Trump in power beyond 2028, promising that “at the appropriate time we’ll lay out what the plan is.” He added, “we had longer odds in 2016 and 2024 than we’ve got in 2028.” These statements have landed like a thunderclap in Washington, where the question of presidential power has already been a source of national anxiety.
Trump himself has fueled the speculation. On his Truth Social platform, the president recently shared a mock video featuring campaign signs for “Trump 2028,” “Trump 2032,” and even “Trump 2036,” all set to dramatic classical music. Earlier this month, during a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Trump reportedly displayed “Trump 2028” caps on the Resolute Desk. It’s a move that, depending on one’s perspective, is either tongue-in-cheek or a sign of more serious intent.
The response from civil society and political leaders was swift and severe. Over the weekend, nearly 7 million Americans participated in protests across the country, organized by the “No Kings” movement, decrying what they described as Trump’s “authoritarian drift.” Legal scholars and constitutional experts, meanwhile, have been quick to remind the public that the 22nd Amendment is not just tradition—it’s law. Ratified in 1951, largely in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency, the amendment reads: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” As reported by News18, legal analysts broadly agree that the amendment’s wording leaves little room for loopholes; it makes no distinction between consecutive or non-consecutive terms, and the prohibition is absolute.
So, how could Bannon’s “plan” possibly work? The specifics remain vague, but several theoretical avenues have been floated—none of them tested, and all fraught with constitutional peril. One possibility is attempting to amend the Constitution itself. But as legal experts note, this would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of US states, a Herculean task in today’s polarized political climate. Another idea, sometimes whispered in legal circles, is that a former president could run as vice president and then ascend to the presidency through succession. However, even this route would likely face immediate court challenges and provoke a constitutional crisis.
Notably, Trump himself has been less than coy about these ambitions. In a recent interview cited by News18, he stated, “I was not joking… there are methods which you could do it.” Both Bannon and Trump have suggested that the 22nd Amendment is not a final barrier but a “barrier we’ll work around” via “different alternatives.” Whether these comments reflect a concrete legal strategy or are primarily meant to energize Trump’s base and deter rivals is still unclear. However, the repeated references to “methods” and “alternatives” are unmistakably designed to signal continuity and inevitability to supporters, while unnerving opponents.
The political implications of this rhetoric are profound. For Trump’s populist base, the idea of a third term reinforces the narrative of a transformative leader obstructed by entrenched elites. It keeps Trump at the center of Republican politics, deterring would-be challengers and energizing loyalists. For Democrats and defenders of institutional norms, the statements serve as a clarion call to defend constitutional safeguards. Vice President Kamala Harris and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have both condemned the remarks as “dangerous authoritarian talk,” according to The Economist.
Internationally, the prospect of an extended Trump presidency has unsettled both allies and adversaries. European leaders worry about the continuity of US commitments to NATO and climate cooperation, while geopolitical rivals such as China and Russia may view prolonged Trumpism as an opportunity to exploit divisions within the Western alliance. The episode also echoes a broader global trend, as populist leaders from Hungary to El Salvador have tested constitutional limits to remain in power, raising alarms about the erosion of democratic norms worldwide.
Historically, the United States has grappled with the dangers of concentrated executive power before. After Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms in office, Congress moved swiftly to pass the 22nd Amendment, enshrining the two-term limit as an inviolable guardrail against authoritarianism. Since then, presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama have accepted the limit without challenge. Bannon’s remarks, and Trump’s own hints, represent a significant escalation in testing the boundaries of this rule. While Trump has previously joked about serving “10 or 14 years,” such comments were typically dismissed as hyperbole. This time, the rhetoric is more pointed—and the stakes are higher.
From a journalistic perspective, transparency and clarity are paramount. When political actors claim “there’s a plan” to move beyond a constitutional barrier, the public deserves to know what that plan entails, how it would work, and whether it is lawful. As of now, the specifics remain shrouded in mystery, and legal certainty is limited. Even if some theoretical loophole existed, circumventing a widely accepted constitutional limit would carry serious democratic consequences, threatening the separation of powers and the rule of law.
As the US approaches another turbulent election cycle, the broader question is no longer just who holds power, but how far they are willing to stretch the rules to keep it. For now, the idea of a Trump 2028 presidency remains constitutionally impossible but politically potent—a symbol of the ongoing struggle between personal ambition and institutional restraint in American democracy.
With the nation on edge and political norms under stress, the coming years will test not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the American constitutional system itself.
