Alright, picture this: It’s 1951. America has just gotten out of World War II, the economy is booming, and Congress looks around and says, “Hey, maybe we should put a cap on this whole ‘president for life’ thing before it gets out of hand.”
Enter the Twenty-Second Amendment, ratified on February 27, 1951, which officially put the brakes on presidential terms: two and done. No take-backs, no do-overs, no “but I was on vacation for four years, that doesn’t count!” It was the country’s way of saying, “Look, FDR was great, but we’re not running a monarchy here.”
And for decades, it worked! Presidents served their two terms, wrote their memoirs, painted some bad art, opened a library, and went off to give very expensive speeches about how much they totally don’t miss being in charge.
But fast forward to 2025, and—surprise!—somebody wants to tweak that whole “two-term limit” thing. And by “somebody,” I mean Rep. Andy Ogles, who proposed a resolution to amend the Twenty-Second Amendment. Now, he’s not saying just anyone should get a third term. No, no, no. He wants to make a special exception: If a president served one term, lost re-election, then somehow clawed their way back into office, boom—third term eligibility unlocked!
You don’t need a PhD in political science to know this is about one guy: Donald J. Trump. He was president from 2017 to 2021, lost, made a lot of noise about it, and then—thanks to an absolute rollercoaster of legal battles, political chaos, and what I can only assume was a demonic pact signed in gold Sharpie—won again in 2024. And now? There’s a faction in Congress saying, “Hey, what if he just keeps going?”
Look, this isn’t the first time someone has flirted with the idea of scrapping term limits. Every few years, there’s some congressperson who introduces a bill to repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment, mostly just to get attention before it dies in committee faster than a third-party candidate in a general election. But this? This is different. This is a serious push to undo the very rule that was designed to prevent a president from becoming too powerful.
And let’s be clear: The reason the Founding Fathers didn’t put presidential term limits in the original Constitution was because they just assumed people had common sense. Washington stepped down after two terms, and everyone kinda just followed that unwritten rule—until FDR rolled in with, “Nah, I got this. And this. And this. And also this.” Four terms later, Congress and the states were like, “Okay, lesson learned. No more unlimited presidencies.”
But here we are. In 2025. Debating whether the amendment should be adjusted for one specific person because, apparently, the rule we made to prevent presidents from serving indefinitely should come with a Trump loyalty punch card.
Now, to be fair, amending the Constitution isn’t easy. It takes two-thirds of both the House and Senate, plus ratification from three-fourths of the states. You could train a capybara to juggle before you’d get that many lawmakers to agree on something. So the odds of this thing actually passing? Slim to none.
But that doesn’t mean the idea isn’t dangerous. The mere fact that it’s being discussed—that a sitting president’s allies are actively working to rewrite the rules to keep him in power longer—should raise every red flag available. Because, historically speaking, when politicians start talking about extending their time in office, democracy tends to develop… let’s call it a breathing problem.
So, happy anniversary, Twenty-Second Amendment! You’ve had a good run. Let’s hope you stick around.
