Trump 2028
He keeps saying it. He keeps posting about it. He’s even had actual hats made with it embroidered on the front. “Trump 2028” is an example of what Rick Perlstein calls “kidding on the square”: a form of trolling in which the fascist says something outrageous but plausibly deniable. To opponents, it’s pitched as a joke, but supporters know he means it.
It’s easy to say that he can’t run again. We’re also on about year 12 of saying “he can’t do that” while watching him do it. If Trump wants to seek a third term, he will do so. The real question is what kind of opposition he’ll face, and, more crucially, what kind of support he’ll have. That’s what will make the difference in the end — and that’s the scenario I think is worth gaming out.
So how does Trump 2028 become a reality?
First, he’ll keep saying it and keep posting about it over the next year. Reporters will ask about it and be dismissed. Some Democratic politicians will call it out, but there will be no concerted attempt to head him off. Republicans will say that they’d love a third Trump term while failing to take a definite position on whether or not he’s legally allowed to serve again. Most in the press, both political parties, and in the Trump administration will call concerns ridiculous and say that of course he won’t be running again.
By the time August 2027 rolls around, we’ll all have heard “Trump 2028” enough that it will have lost its initial shock value. When Trump announces that yes, he is in fact going to seek a third term, there will be a reaction, but it will be more muted than what the moment requires.
The political press will mostly cover the matter as a debate between two sides, those who say that he can’t run and those who say that he can. The Sunday morning shows will ask guests to respond to the 22nd Amendment before running out of time and saying that we’ll have to leave it there. Democrats will introduce toothless resolutions affirming Presidential term limits, but even if they’ve taken the majority in both houses of Congress, will stop short of passing legislation or of impeaching Trump for a third time. The guardrails will hold, they’ll insist, even as more proactive right-wing activists have cases winding their way through the legal system.
All the way to the Supreme Court.
Lower courts will reaffirm the precedent and the plain meaning of the 22nd Amendment. When it comes before SCOTUS, suddenly there will be doubt. Suddenly there will be controversy. Suddenly, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice” will be found to possess an intolerable ambiguity. Given the specious and contradictory reasoning that has guided most court decisions over the past decade, the Roberts court can be counted on to adhere to one principle and one principle only: that it’s ok if it’s good for Donald Trump.
I can even tell you what their reasoning will be. Alito and Thomas no longer care about keeping up a front of impartiality, but the other conservative justices do, especially Roberts. So they’ll need to identify something about Trump 2028 that would never have applied before and probably will never apply again. And there is something!
Trump, you see, would not be running for a third consecutive term. He served one term from 2017-2021, sat out for four years, and now has been serving again since 2025. The court will find that the statue actually only applies to Presidential terms in succession. Never mind that the plain meaning of the text makes no distinction here, nor that this common understanding has held since the amendment’s ratification. None of that matters.
Because Trump will be the only person in history to have sought a third term after serving two non-consecutive terms, the Roberts court will say that the situation is unprecedented and did not factor into writing of the 22nd Amendment. In this case — and in this case only — the amendment clearly means that you can seek a second term in a row, no matter what. In fact, that’s what it’s always meant. You proles just didn’t know that. You didn’t have the circumspection and the perspicacity of the court’s legal minds.
Best of all for the court, when is this situation likely to arise again? Probably never, making it the perfect pro-Trump decision. That’s why I think it’s going to happen.