Tuesday, 17 June 2025

Steve Bannon Endorses Trump For 2028!

100 Percent Fed Up
Hits: 24

Yes, you read that correctly….

Steve Bannon (a very smart guy) just said he believes President Trump will RUN and WIN in 2028!

Is your mind blown yet?

Allow me to dig into this a bit and sort some things out…

First of all, yes that’s exactly what he just said:

It came during an interview with Chris Cuomo on News Nation.

Here is a short clip:

🚨 Steve Bannon announced that the Trump team is already planning and gearing up for Trump 2028 🚨

Steve Bannon:

“I’m a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028, so I’ve already endorsed President Trump.”

Chris Cuomo:

“He’s term limited. How do you think he gets another term?”

Steve Bannon:

“We’re working on it.” (WE’RE)? 👀

What happens when the 2020 stolen election is overturned?

Is this why the left says that Trump is going to try to stay in power and that we won’t have another election in 2028?

Full video here — along with a full transcript, but then scroll down farther and I’ll unpack this:

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

CHRIS CUOMO: THANK YOU, ELIZABETH. I’M CHRIS CUOMO. WELCOME TO NEWS NATION. YOU KNOW, MANY OF YOU STRUGGLED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTIVATES HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS AND DOES MANY THINGS.

WELL, THERE ARE FEW, IF ANY, WHO CAN EXPLAIN WHAT MOTIVATES DONALD JOHN TRUMP MORE OR BETTER THAN STEVE BANNON—YOU KNOW HIM AS THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST. BUT HE IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF MAGA AS WELL AS OF TRUMP’S 2016 PRESIDENTIAL WIN. YOU KNOW, HE WAS IN LIMBO FOR A BIT, RIGHT? YOU MAY REMEMBER AFTER CALLING A MEETING THAT INVOLVED TRUMP’S SON AND POTENTIALLY TREASONOUS ACTIONS.

BUT HE’S TOO VALUABLE TO STAY ESTRANGED. YES, GUYS GOT SOME PAST. HE WAS IN THE NAVY. HE WORKED AT THE PENTAGON. HE WORKED ON WALL STREET.

HE WAS IN FILM PRODUCTION, OF COURSE, IN POLITICS, AND NOW PODCASTING, AND HE’S GAINING TRACTION—MORE AND MORE AWAY FROM THE RIGHT, BUT HE’S CERTAINLY STILL INJECTING THE WARRIOR SPIRIT THAT DRIVES MAGA. HE TOOK HIS LUMPS AS PART OF TRUMP WORLD. HE SERVED MONTHS IN JAIL FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA CONNECTED TO THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE.

HE WAS ALSO PARDONED BY TRUMP FOR FOUR FEDERAL CHARGES, OR FROM FEDERAL CHARGES INVOLVING A CHARITY EFFORT TO FUND THE BUILDING OF THE WALL ALONG THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN BORDER. THEN NEW YORK STATE BROUGHT CHARGES—REMEMBER, A PRESIDENT CAN PARDON YOU FROM STATE CHARGES. AND BANNON JUST PLEADED GUILTY AS PART OF A CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE DEAL. SO IT SEEMS THAT THE PAST IS BEHIND HIM.

SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT OUR PRESIDENT AND OUR POTENTIAL FUTURE—HOW HE CAN EXPLAIN WHAT WE’RE SEEING, THE ADMINISTRATION, AND WHAT HIS ROLE MIGHT BE—BECAUSE THIS IS THE GUY BEHIND MUCH OF THE AGGRESSIVE MESSAGING: AMERICA BEING AT WAR, THE DEMOCRATS BEING THE ENEMY, THE MEDIA BEING THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. OK, YOU’VE HEARD TRUMP SAY THAT A LOT, BUT BANNON COINED IT.

OKAY. IN TERMS OF THIS ITERATION OF USAGE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE—THERE NEEDS TO BE SHOCK TROOPS TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. HE INFAMOUSLY PREDICTED THAT ALL WOULD BREAK LOOSE ON JANUARY 6TH. SO I WANT TO SEE WHERE HIS MIND IS ON WHAT WE’RE ALL LIVING THROUGH TOGETHER AND WHAT HIS ROLE MAY BE GOING FORWARD. JOINING ME NOW, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST AT ONE TIME OF THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, HOST OF BANNON’S WAR ROOM, MISTER STEVE—THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY.

STEVE: CHRIS, THANKS FOR HAVING ME ON NEWS NATION, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR INVITATION.

THE ONLY THING THAT YOU’RE NOT GOING TO LIKE TALKING ABOUT—we’LL TALK ABOUT THAT FIRST. I’M WATCHING CPAC, AND THEY PUT UP A POLL OF POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, NEXT GENERATION, RIGHT? POST-TRUMP, YOU’RE OUR SECOND ON THE LIST AFTER THE VICE PRESIDENT AS PEOPLE GETTING THE NOD AT CPAC TO BE PRESIDENT.

A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE SURPRISED BY THIS. MY FIRST QUESTION: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PUTTING YOUR NAME ON THAT LIST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO FINANCIAL AMBITIONS? NOW, NO. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP—I AM A FIRM BELIEVER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL RUN AND WIN AGAIN IN 2028. SO I’VE ALREADY ENDORSED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

A MAN LIKE THIS COMES ONCE EVERY CENTURY. NOW THAT WE’VE GOT HIM, HE’S ON FIRE—I’M A HUGE SUPPORTER. I WANT TO SEE HIM AGAIN IN 2028. AND OBVIOUSLY, ANYBODY WHO DOESN’T LIKE WHAT YOU SAY, OR JUDGES YOU, IS DOING SO BECAUSE OF A LACK OF INTELLIGENCE OR DOESN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT YOU. I DON’T MAKE THAT MISTAKE. YOU’RE A SMART GUY.

YOU KNOW, HE’S TERM-LIMITED. HOW DO YOU THINK HE GETS ANOTHER TERM? WE’RE WORKING ON IT. I THINK WE’LL HAVE, I THINK WE’LL HAVE A COUPLE OF ALTERNATIVES—LET’S SAY THAT. WE’LL SEE WHERE HE’S AT. GOING ALONG, PEOPLE WILL SAY THAT WITH THE DEFINITION OF TERM LIMIT, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

WELL, SO YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT LITIGATING THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE I DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO LISTEN TO OUR INTERVIEW AND SAY BANNON IS COOKING UP AN INSURRECTION. SOME ARE SUGGESTING THAT BANNON IS COOKING UP SOMETHING, BUT I WANT PEOPLE TO GET A STRAIGHT TAKE ON WHERE YOUR HEAD IS. WHAT DO YOU SEE? WE, CHRIS, AS YOU KNOW, HAVE HAD GREAT OR LONG SHOTS.

AND THEN WE SWEEPLY SUPPORTED PRESIDENT TRUMP AFTER THE ELECTION. I REALIZE YOU DON’T BELIEVE THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN IN 2020—WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT. WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHOSE SUPPORT LED US BACK TO MAR-A-LAGO ON JANUARY 21, 2020, WAS ONE OF THE LONG SHOTS TO RETURN TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

WE SAID THAT DAY IN OUR PODCAST—WHILE HAVING PRESIDENT TRUMP’S BACK—that HE WAS COMING BACK; NOT ONLY DID HE WIN THE PRIMARY, BUT HE WOULD WIN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND WE HAD TO GET ORGANIZED AND DRIVE THAT VICTORY. WE ALSO STARTED WORKING ON ALL THE POLICIES—WHAT’S CALLED PROJECT 2025 OR THE AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE—BUT ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINK TANKS THAT BEGAN PUTTING IN THE POLICIES THAT YOU’RE SEEING TODAY, WHAT WE CALL FLOOD THE ZONE OR DAYS OF THUNDER, OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE IT.

THIS WAS MANY YEARS IN THE MAKING. WE’VE HAD GREAT OR LONG SHOTS THAN TRUMP 2028, AND WE’VE GOT A LOT OF STUFF WE’RE WORKING ON. THERE WERE DETAILS WE WERE NOT PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT PUBLICLY, BUT IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, I THINK WE WILL. BUT YOU ARE NOT SUGGESTING REVOLUTION OR OVERTHROW OR ANYTHING THAT PEOPLE WOULD CONDEMN.

CHRIS, WE JUST EXPERIENCED ONE OF THE BIGGEST SWEEPING VICTORIES IN THE MIDDLE OF A 1932-TYPE REALIGNMENT, IF WE CAN CONTINUE ON AND HAVE POPULIST POLICIES—POPULIST NATIONAL POLICIES, WHICH WE DO HAVE. YOUR ANALOGY COMES TO OUR SIDE. WE ARE HUGE BELIEVERS IN DEMOCRACY BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW TO GET VOTES OUT.

WE KNOW HOW TO GET LOW-PROPENSITY, LITTLE-INFORMATION VOTERS OUT TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT’S POLICIES. THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC FORCES, AS YOU’RE SEEING TODAY IN THE COURTS—THEY’RE TRYING TO OBSTRUCT A SITTING PRESIDENT FROM FULFILLING HIS EXECUTIVE DUTY. NOW, THE BIG DEMOCRATIC BELIEVERS ARE SHOWING IT BECAUSE WE WON THIS UNBELIEVABLE COMEBACK—not just in 2016, as you know, but in 2020 for one virtual election. EVERYBODY RULED TRUMP OUT. THERE’S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

AND IN 2024, PEOPLE DID NOT SEE HIM MAKING THE KIND OF COMEBACK THAT HE DID, AND THAT IS CERTAINLY A HISTORICAL COMEBACK. NO QUESTION. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR SO THAT PEOPLE CAN PAINT YOU, AS YOU KNOW, AS SUGGESTING REVOLUTION. YOUR ANALOGY IS TO 1932 AND HOW FDR EXTENDED IT. YOU KNOW, THE CONSTITUTION—PROBABLY NICE FRIDAY GETS IN THE—I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN THE REVOLUTION YOU’RE SEEING NOW, THE REVOLUTION OF COMMON SENSE TO DECONSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE.

YOU’RE SAYING THAT BATTLE AND THAT COMBAT HAPPENS POLITICALLY AND LEGALLY IN FEDERAL COURTS EVERY SECOND, EVERY DAY. I GET THE AUDIENCE—THEY LOVE YOU, BUT THEY OUGHT TO START PAYING ATTENTION TO ALSO THIS GREATER ARC OF THIS MASSIVE FIGHT FOR THE DIRECTION OF THIS REPUBLIC. LISTEN, WE TALK ABOUT IT HERE ALL THE TIME. SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS: IF YOU ARE SO SYMPATHETIC WITH WHAT’S GOING ON, HOW DID YOU ALLOW ELON MUSK TO BECOME THE RIGHT-HAND MAN OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND, ARGUABLY, CAUSE HIM A LOT OF AGENDA IN EFFECT?

YOU’RE SAYING—WHATEVER HIS POSITION IS—THAT SHOULD HAVE ALMOST 100% ACCEPTANCE BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE. SO HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? WHO’S AGAINST WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE? IT IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND ITS ROGUE ELEMENT. THE DEEP STATE, SAY, LOOK, ELON AND HIM—I HAVE HUGE, ALMOST UNBRIDGEABLE DIFFERENCES ON SO MANY THINGS, LIKE TRANSHUMANISM, TECHNOLOGY, VISAS, AND IMMIGRATION.

BUT HE BACKED OUR PLAY VERY EARLY ON, IN, I THINK, JUNE AND JULY OF LAST YEAR, BACKING THIS KIND OF GRASSROOTS EFFORT TO GET LOW-PROPENSITY, LOW-INFORMATION VOTERS. HE PUT IN 250 MILLION DOLLARS—AN AMOUNT THAT HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. HE WAS ALSO A SUPPORTER OF THIS MERGER OF THE “BOBBY KENNEDY MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN” CAMPAIGN, WHICH BROUGHT OUT ALL THOSE RED KILLED MOMS. THAT WAS A HUGE EFFORT.

HE’S ALSO—AS YOU KNOW, I’M ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THE DECONSTRUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE—HE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF USING “DOGE” AS RELIABLE SHOCK TROOPS INTO THE SYSTEM. IT’S A TRAUMA-INDUCING EFFORT AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND ALL OF ITS NOT-VERY-PRETTY ASPECTS. BUT I THINK IT’S BEEN PRETTY EFFECTIVE TO DATE. NOW, REALIZE THAT TODAY IN THE COURTS, HE HAD A PRETTY BIG REVERSAL, AT LEAST ON THE SURFACE.

BUT THE AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDS WE ARE RUNNING 2 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS. WE BASICALLY SPENT 6 AND A HALF TRILLION DOLLARS—WE’RE TALKING ABOUT 4, AND IT WAS 2 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS. IT ALL GOES TO OUR DEBT, WHICH HAS TO BE REFINANCED EVERY YEAR. THIS IS IMPACTING INFLATION. WE HAVE TO CUT IT. THERE ARE TWO WAYS YOU CAN CUT IT: EITHER PROGRAMMATICALLY, WHICH WE’RE GOING TO DO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS, OR YOU FIND WAYS TO ADDRESS ABUSE. IT’S NEVER A TERRIBLY PLEASANT PROCESS.

BUT HIS EFFORT IS MAKING SOME PROGRESS. I HOPE IT MAKES MORE PROGRESS—CRAZY, WHAT HE’S SAID IS HE’S A TRILLION DOLLARS. I DON’T THINK WE’LL GET THERE, BUT HE’S MAKING AN EFFORT, AND I THINK HE’S GETTING SOME REAL TRACTION. OF COURSE, LIKE ANY INDUSTRY, THEY’RE BREAKING THINGS ALL THE TIME. AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOW GIVING COURSE CORRECTION TO. NOW, THE DEPARTMENT HEADS—OR SHOULD I SAY THE CABINET SECRETARIES—ARE MUCH MORE ON THE BALL.

SO I THINK IT’S HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, ALTHOUGH FOLKS CAN UNDERSTAND THAT YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE SOME SPEED BUMPS. YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK HE’S CAUSING THE SPEED BUMPS, FRANKLY. I MEAN, THE WAY TO DO WHAT HE’S DOING IS SENDING YOUR SHOCK TROOPS—AS YOU CALL THEM—MAKING YOUR LIST, PUTTING THE JUSTIFICATIONS TOGETHER, PRESENTING THEM TO CONGRESS, AND THEN LETTING EVERYBODY KNOW SO THAT CONGRESS KNOWS THAT WE’RE ALL AWARE OF WHAT THEY’VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH.

INSTEAD, YOU KNOW, THIS IS KIND OF LIKE THE WEAKNESS I SEE: YOU GUYS PUT THINGS TOGETHER HALF-COCKED. YOU GET THE NUMBERS WRONG. HE ATTACKS SOCIAL SECURITY. HE BLAMES IT FOR OUR DEFICIT, WHICH MAKES NO SENSE—YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT’S CRAZY. TALK ABOUT WHY MUSK IS IN THERE—USED TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE MUSCULAR AGAINST HIM. I FEEL LIKE I’M SEEING A BAN, AND TO KNOW, DON’T CHECK ON THESE BIG ISSUES OF ALWAYS SUPPORTING WHAT HE’S DOING.

JOHN, TO GO BACK—THIS ALSO GETS BACK TO THIS UNITARY THEORY OF THE EXECUTIVE THAT WE’VE BEEN PUSHING, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT. HE’S THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES, AND ALSO THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. I REALIZE THAT CAUSES HEADS TO ROLL, LIKE WHEN HE GOES AFTER THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ON FRIDAY.

BUT IN THE ELON MUSK CASE, THE PRESIDENT HAS, I THINK, COME FORWARD WITH THE ABILITY TO IMPOUND MONEY. OUR THEORY IS THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL—WHICH IS LAW—SETS THE CEILING ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT CAN SPEND. HERE, THE PRESIDENT IS MAKING A UNILATERAL DECISION TO NOT SPEND THAT MUCH, BUT RATHER REPROGRAM IT. I UNDERSTAND THAT’S GOING TO BE HOTLY CONTESTED IN THE COURTS, AND PROBABLY ON OUR SHOW. HERE WE GO—the SUPREME COURT. SO YOU LITIGATED.

SO YOU LITIGATED AND FINISHED WITH ALL OF THAT. NOW, HERE’S THE FIRST THING I NEED YOU TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND. I DON’T BUY THE “NOW”—FULL DISCLOSURE, STEVE, I DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT WHAT YOU’VE BEEN FOLLOWING HERE AT NEWS NATION. I DID NOT LIKE THE NEW YORK CASES AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP; IT TOOK A LOT OF SCHEMING, BUT THAT’S WHAT I SIGNED UP FOR, TO FINALLY VALUE CLOSE TIGER.

SO WE KNOW YOUR STANCE ON THAT NIGHT. I DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE IMPEACHMENT, ONLY BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU COULDN’T REMOVE HIM—TO ME, IT WAS A POLITICAL OPERATION. IF YOU CAN’T REMOVE THE GUY, THE IDEA OF A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE DIDN’T WASH WITH ME, OK? THAT’S WHERE I AM ON IT. THAT SAID, I DON’T GET THIS: THE JUDGES—THE ROGUE JUDGES. STEVE, YOU GOT RID OF DHAKA BY GOING TO ONE DISTRICT COURT AND STARTING LITIGATION THAT WOUND UP AT THE SUPREME COURT.

SAME THING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. SAME THING WITH BIDEN’S RELIEF. YOU USED THE SAME SYSTEM THAT THEY’RE USING RIGHT NOW WITH THE ALIEN ENEMIES ACT. WHY IS THIS JUDGE GOING AFTER TRUMP? WHAT JUDGE WOULDN’T PUT A HOLD ON A REMOVAL ORDER? THAT’S BASED ON A 1789-1898 LAW THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR THIS. IS IT ALWAYS TOLD? IT’S TOTALLY A DIFFERENT PERSON. BY THE WAY, I ACTUALLY THINK MORE OF THESE RADICAL NEW JUDGES—THEY THAT ARE WORKING IN COORDINATION—OUGHT TO BE IMPEACHED AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE.

I ALSO REALIZE THAT PROBABLY NONE OF THEM WILL BE REMOVED BY THE SENATE, BUT I THINK GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS IS NECESSARY. THE CHIEF JUST AS OF THE DISTRICT COURT—HE’S STEPPING INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ROLE AS THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DESIGNATED A TERRORIST GROUP. PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE A DECISION AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF TO GET THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY. THEY’RE PART OF AN INVASION.

HE SAID, “I’M OUT,” AND THE JUDGE—PEOPLE, LOOK AT WHAT HE DID ON SATURDAY: HE CALLED TOGETHER, AND HE HELD COURT. THEN HE ASKED, “WHERE ARE THE PLANES?” HE’S MAKING COMMAND DECISIONS THAT A MILITARY COMMANDER WOULD MAKE. HE’S TOTALLY OUTSIDE HIS LANE. NOW, MIND YOU, DAVIS IS LEADING THE EFFORT TO GET THE JUDICIARY, TO GET ON TOP OF JORDAN AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, TO ACTUALLY START THE PROCESS OF IMPEACHING THIS JUDGE.

I’M A BIG BELIEVER. I GRANT THAT THE PROCESS—TRUST THE PROCESS—MEANS THAT I REALIZE THIS JUDGE WILL PROBABLY NOT BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF A TRIAL IN THE SENATE, BUT I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A PROCESS WHERE THIS JUDGE IS ACTUALLY IMPEACHED. NO OFFENSE, BUT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT ROBERTS CAME OUT AND DID NOTHING, BUT HAS THESE JUDGES’ BACKS, I THINK IT TOTALLY OUTLINES THE COMMENT HE MADE TODAY. IT’S GOING TO MAKE THIS FIGHT EVEN TOUGHER.

BUT HERE’S THE DEAL: YOU GOT TO HELP ME RECONCILE. I GET ATTACKING YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT—I GET CRITICIZING IT. IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF WHY THE FOUNDERS, THE ARCHITECTS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WERE CONCERNED WITH REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. YOU GOT TO BE ABLE TO GO AFTER IT, AND SO IT’S NOT A CROWN. I DON’T UNDERSTAND, THOUGH, HOW YOU SQUARE PATRIOTISM AND THE MOVEMENT WITH ATTACKING THE INSTITUTIONS. YOU CAN LITIGATE IT, BUT THIS JUDGE—HE’S TAKING A COMMANDING POSITION.

YOU’RE ASSUMING THAT THIS IS AN INVASION, BECAUSE THAT’S ONE OF THE TRIGGER MECHANISMS UNDER THAT 1798 LAW. BUT AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE THEY’RE FROM VENEZUELA DOESN’T MEAN THEY ARE AN ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT OR THAT THIS IS PART OF SOME KIND OF WAR ACT, AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE LAW. YOU COULD ARGUE THAT, AND I’M FINE WITH THAT, BUT YOU’RE ASSUMING IT IS A MATTER OF FACT—IN DISGUISE, SOME KIND OF TRAITOR. AND I DON’T GET HOW YOU CAN BE A PATRIOT WHILE ATTACKING THE INSTITUTIONS. WE’RE NOT ATTACKING INSTITUTIONS. CROTEAU ONCE SAID THAT THE INSTITUTIONS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE THE REASON THE DEMOCRATS LOST.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT INSTITUTIONS HAVE TO EITHER PURGE OR BE REFORMED—EVERYTHING FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO THE FBI, TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, TO THE PENTAGON. AND THAT’S WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S MANDATE IS. THAT’S WHAT HE’S DOING. DON’T THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE TELLS YOU WHO SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION, THIS JUDGE IS STEPPING INTO THE MIDDLE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MADE A DECISION—THEY’RE A TERRORIST GROUP. HE’S MADE A DECISION THAT THE GUYS ARE GOING TO BE EXPELLED FROM THE STATES. THEY WERE ON PLANES TO A COUNTRY THAT AGREED TO TAKE THEM IN. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A MILITARY OFFICER. THIS IS NOT A MILITARY OPERATION—IT WAS ICE. IT WAS ICE. YOU WOULD BASICALLY BE RUNNING INTO A POSSIBLE COMMENTARY ON US IF YOU DID IT THE WAY YOU ARE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IS NOT THE MILITARIZED WAY IT SHOULD BE.

IT WAS 10:00 AM ON ICE WHEN THEY DID WHAT AMOUNTS TO A MILITARY OPERATION TO GET THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY. IT WAS DANGEROUS FOR THIS REGION, AND LOOK AT THE DETAILED ANALYSIS—NOW, I’M NOT AGAINST READING THE HISTORY OF THE GANGS. THAT’S NOT MY POINT. I KEEP SAYING, “GET YOUR POINT OVER THE HEAD.” THEY WANT TO COME BACK, YOU GUYS. NOW, WASHINGTON IS NOT MY POSITION, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE A DIFFERENT WAY.

YOU CAN DO IT A DIFFERENT PROCESS. THIS IS NOT A MILITARY SITUATION. YOU NEED A DECLARATION OF WAR UNDER THAT LAW TO TRIGGER ITS REMOVAL MECHANISM. THAT’S WHY YOU’RE PLAYING AT THIS BEING MILITARISTIC. IT PRESSES UPON PRESIDENT TRUMP’S BELIEF AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. HE’S DONE WHAT HE NEEDED TO DO, AND THE PROCLAMATION TO ACTUALLY EXPEL THESE INVADERS—THEY ARE DANGEROUS CRIMINALS, AND THE PEOPLE DEFENDING THEM ARE IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION, ARGUING DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

LET THE MARKET, LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE. BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT GOING TO FINALLY GET THESE PEOPLE BACK, AND HE’S NOT GOING TO ALLOW A JUDGE TO STEP BETWEEN HIM AND DECISIONS THAT ARE TANTAMOUNT TO MILITARY DECISIONS. IF THEY WERE MILITARY DECISIONS, IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT, THOUGH THOSE CAN BE LITIGATED ALSO, AND THEY HAVE BEEN. I DON’T WANT TO COME OFF AS CONDESCENDING—YOU KNOW, THE HISTORY IS THERE.

A LOT OF THE CASE LAW ON THIS STUFF—I’VE LISTENED TO YOUR PODCASTS ON IT AND YOUR SPEECHES—SO I GET THAT. I’M NOT TALKING DOWN, IF YOU TAKE IT THAT WAY. WHAT I’M SAYING IS, I’M FINE WITH LITIGATING IT LIKE WITH THOSE OTHER CASES THAT WORK THROUGH THE SYSTEM. THE WAY IT COMES OUT IS THE WAY IT COMES OUT. I FEEL LIKE THERE’S A NEW WRINKLE TO MAGA, WHICH IS ANYTHING THAT DOESN’T GO OUR WAY IS CORRUPT, AND ANYBODY WHO DOESN’T AGREE WITH US IS AN ENEMY.

AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOME REAL BS TO ME, STEVE. CHRIS, I DON’T THINK THAT’S THE FACT—I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND VERY MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN—WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO HERE?

TO BASICALLY MAKE SURE THAT THE CRIMINAL, PARTICULARLY THE GANG-RELATED ELEMENTS—THAT’S WHERE THE MUDDLING DOESN’T TURN INTO TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS—THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG-TERM ISSUE. AND WE’RE NOT ACCUSING PEOPLE WHO DON’T AGREE WITH THIS OF BEING ENEMIES; THERE ARE DOMESTIC ENEMIES, AND THERE’S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF THE DEEP STATE WORKING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, AND I THINK THOSE ARE GOING TO BE ROOTED OUT IN THE VERY NEAR TERM.

AND SO, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP IS VERY FOCUSED ON THIS, YOU CAN SEE EVERY DAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ALL GAS, NO BRAKES. I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD ANTICIPATE MUCH MORE OF THIS MOVEMENT. IN THE END, THE ONLY WAY THE DEMOCRATS CAN FIGHT US IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO POLITICAL POWER. AS YOU KNOW, YOU’VE SAID THIS MANY TIMES—NO REAL URBAN LEADER HAS REALLY EMERGED. THEY’RE TRYING SOME SORT OF RESISTANCE IN THE STREETS, NOT WORKING; THEY’RE USING LAWFARE AGAIN, AND WHAT YOU ARE SO AGAINST IS THE USE OF LAW FOR DELAYING, FOR DENYING, FOR DELAYING THE NIGHT.

AND SO, WHAT THEY’RE GOING TO TRY TO DO IS ENGAGE IN A REAR-GUARD ACTION AND DRAG THIS OUT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITUATION IN SAN FRANCISCO, THAT JUDGE’S ORDER—WHEN YOU GO THROUGH HOW HE WAS TREATING THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS—it’S LIKE A TWO-YEAR PROCESS, AND THAT’S WHAT THEY HOPE TO INSTILL. I THINK YOU SEE PRESIDENT TRUMP EVEN DOUBLE OR TRIPLE DOWN MORE ON THIS KIND OF APPROACH. WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, AND WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A CONFRONTATION WITH THESE COURTS. I DON’T SEE IT AS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

I FEEL LIKE THAT’S THE PART I DON’T UNDERSTAND: WHY YOU NEED TO GO THERE IN ORDER TO SAY WE WANT CHANGE. IF HE DOESN’T LIKE THE RULING, HE APPEALS—THAT’S HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS. THAT’S HOW YOU GUYS HAVE DONE IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE SYSTEM BECOMES PART OF THE SUSPICION, AND I JUST DON’T GET IT.

HERE, YOU HAVE A JUDGE INSERTING HIMSELF BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS—LOOK, HE’S GETTING A RAW ARGUMENT. I GET YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT I JUST DON’T ACCEPT IT. AND I SAW OUR CASE OUT IN LITIGATION, BUT I WANT TO TELL THE AUDIENCE THAT ONE HEARS AND FEELS THAT’S NOT DEMONIZING YOU FOR MAKING THE CASE; I’M JUST SAYING, “I DON’T AGREE.” THAT’S ALL.

BUT I WOULD TELL YOUR AUDIENCE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS RIGHT NOW ARE THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THIS BATTLE, AND ALL THESE DIFFERENT FEDERAL COURTS—IT’S GOING TO BE HOTLY CONTESTED. I AGREE, BUT THAT’S THE WAY IT’S SUPPOSED TO WORK. THAT’S HOW WE FLEX OUR DEMOCRACY, AND THAT’S WHAT MAKES US DIFFERENT—in A GOOD WAY.

LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT ONE THING: HELP ME UNDERSTAND UKRAINE AND RUSSIA. TO ME, IT FEELS LIKE WHEN TRUMP CAME BACK IN OFFICE, THE SCRIPT FLIPPED. EVERYBODY WAS YELLOW AND BLUE ALL DAY LONG. WHEN I GOT FIRED, I WAS NOT SITTING AT HOME WATCHING THE UKRAINE WAR—I WENT OVER THERE ON MY OWN DIME TO COVER IT.

AND HELP SEAN PENN WITH HIS DOCUMENTARY ON THE FRONT—EVERYBODY SAW THEM AS SOME KIND OF EXTENSION OF WHAT AMERICA WAS WHEN IT FOUGHT AGAINST THE ENGLISH. NOW THAT TRUMP IS BACK, YOU NEVER LIKE ZELENSKYY BECAUSE OF THAT PHONE CALL, RIGHT? THAT LED TO THE SECOND IMPEACHMENT—OR HELPED THE SECOND IMPEACHMENT ALONG, WHICH, AGAIN, I WASN’T IN FAVOR OF BECAUSE I KNEW THEY WOULD REMOVE HIM.

BUT AGAIN, NOW IT’S LIKE RUSSIA—PRETTY GOOD—and NOW IT SEEMS LIKE RUSSIA IS ORCHESTRATING THE PEACE TERMS. NOW, WE’RE NOT GOING TO AGREE TO PEACE, BUT YEAH—LET’S STOP HITTING THE ENERGY CENTERS, WHICH, BY ALL ACCOUNTS, PUTIN IS STILL TARGETING EVEN WHILE NEGOTIATIONS ARE UNDERWAY. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS IS THE RIGHT MOVE FOR AMERICA—to BE AS ACCOMMODATIVE OF SOMEONE THAT YOUR PARTY HAS NEVER TRUSTED UNTIL NOW?

IT’S CHRISTMAS—GO BACK IN TIME. IF YOU GO, THE WAR—AND PARTICULARLY THE RIGHT OF HARD RIGHT OF THE MAGA MOVEMENT—we WERE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THIS FROM DAY ONE. WE WILL QUOTE, PROFESSOR MERSHIMER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, ON THE EVE OF THE WAR, THAT THE WEST WAS GOING TO LEAD THE WAR IN UKRAINE. PEOPLE WERE ON THE PRIMROSE PATH TO DESTRUCTION.

WELL, WE’VE ARGUED ABOUT THE WAR FROM DAY ONE, THAT THIS IS RIDICULOUS. AND NOW YOU HAVE, WHAT, ABOUT BRUMMER—I THINK, CALCULATING THAT BETWEEN 40, 55,000,000 UKRAINIANS DEAD OR WOUNDED, THE COUNTRY LOOKS LIKE DRESDEN IN 1945? THERE ARE 800 TO 900,000 DEAD OR WOUNDED RUSSIAN TROOPS—THE NUMBERS HERE ARE BIGGER THAN THOSE FROM THE INVASION OF POLAND IN 1939, OR OPERATION BARBAROSSA IN JUNE 1941, THE BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR II. THIS WAR NOW—IT’S COMBAT AT ITS MOST PROFOUND.

WE’VE BEEN OPPOSED TO THIS FROM DAY ONE. WE HAVE ARGUED THAT WE NEED TO ESTABLISH A RUSSIAN ROAD—ONE THAT BREAKS RUSSIA OFF FROM CHINA, AND THE CIA’S COUNTRIES, OR WHATEVER THE ALLIANCE IS, WORKING TOGETHER IN THAT EURASIAN LANDMASS. I THINK TODAY’S CALL REINFORCES THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PUTIN ARE TALKING AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL—SOME SORT OF ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP, MAYBE EVEN A STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP THAT INCLUDES THE MIDDLE EAST AND MAYBE EVEN ADDRESSES THE SITUATION WITH THE PERSIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM.

SO NOW, WE’VE OPPOSED THIS FROM DAY ONE. THAT’S WHY WE’VE BEEN BIG ADVOCATES—PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS TEAM, LIKE STEVE WITKOFF—OF FOCUSING ON THE OVERALL RUSSIAN STRATEGIC DEAL. OUR STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP, AND LET MARCO RUBIO AND OTHERS WORK ON THE UKRAINE PEACE AS A SUBSET OF THIS, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A SUBSET. AND LOOK, THE RUSSIANS—DO YOU TRUST PUTIN? I SAID, “DID WINSTON CHURCHILL TRUST JOSEPH STALIN?” OF COURSE NOT. RIGHT? CHURCHILL, FDR—NEVER REALLY TRUSTED THEM. THEY DIDN’T TRUST, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE GREAT ALLIES.

THE LAST—WHAT? 35 TO 50 MILLION PEOPLE IN WORLD WAR II, IN COMBAT, WERE STARVING. YOU DON’T TRUST THE KGB, BUT YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO BREAK THE BACK OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY. I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP’S GEOSTRATEGIC VISION HERE IS GOING TO BE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II. AND I THINK THEY’RE GOING TO HAMMER THIS OUT. IT’S GOING TO TAKE MONTHS, BUT I THINK THERE’S A PRETTY GOOD START.

SO, STEVE, I KNOW THAT YOU’RE NOT ONLY WORKING IN DIGITAL MEDIA, BUT AS PART OF THAT INNER SANCTUM, YOU HAVE AN OPEN INVITATION TO COME HERE AS WE GO THROUGH THE MASTER NATIONS OF THIS MOVEMENT.

STEVE: AND WE SEE WHAT’S HAPPENING WHEN I NEED EXPLANATION FROM THAT SIDE. WE HAVE AN OPEN DOOR POLICY HERE. YOU’RE INVITED TO COME IN AND MAKE THE CASE WHENEVER YOU WANT.

CHRIS: WE’RE ALWAYS GLAD TO HAVE YOU COME BACK. WE WATCH NEWS NATION, AND I…

Ok, so what’s going on?

How is this possible?

Has Steve Bannon gone crazy?

I don’t think so.

He’s a very smart man, and I saw a real glint in his eye, almost as if they already have the plan and it’s bulletproof and he’s just biting his tongue to not give it away.

That’s how I read his body language, how about you?

So….how could that possibly happen?

I went to Grok to ask for a full analysis of all possible options and it gave me quite a list!

Spoiler alert: it’s not impossible!

1. Acting as President Without Being Elected (Via Succession)

One theoretical way Trump could serve in a presidential capacity beyond his two elected terms is through the line of succession, as outlined in the 25th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. If Trump were to occupy a position in the line of succession—such as Vice President, Speaker of the House, or a Cabinet role—he could ascend to the presidency if the sitting president and vice president were unable to serve.

Scenario:
Trump is selected as Vice President in 2028 by a newly elected president (e.g., a loyal successor like J.D. Vance or another ally wins the presidency). If that president resigns or is incapacitated early in the term, Trump could assume the presidency. The 22nd Amendment prohibits being elected more than twice, but it does not explicitly bar someone from serving as president via succession.

Feasibility:
This hinges on Trump being willing to take a subordinate role (e.g., Vice President), which seems unlikely given his preference for direct leadership. Additionally, the Senate must confirm a vice president under the 25th Amendment, and a Democratic-controlled Senate could block such an appointment. Politically, this would also require a successor willing to step aside, which could face public and legal scrutiny.

Legal Nuance:
Some scholars debate whether the “spirit” of the 22nd Amendment might be interpreted by courts to prevent this, but the text itself only limits elections, not succession.

2. Influencing a Proxy President

A more practical, though indirect, way Trump could exert “third-term” influence is by grooming a successor who would act as a proxy, effectively carrying out his agenda while he retains significant sway behind the scenes.

Scenario:
Trump endorses a close ally or family member (e.g., Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, or a loyalist like Ron DeSantis) for the 2028 election. If they win, Trump could serve as a de facto leader, advising or even informally directing policy from outside the Oval Office, much like a powerful political figure or “kingmaker.”

Feasibility:
This doesn’t violate any constitutional provision, as Trump wouldn’t hold office himself. Historical precedents exist, such as Theodore Roosevelt’s influence after leaving office or modern political dynasties like the Kennedys or Bushes. Trump’s strong grip on the Republican base (evidenced by his 2024 victory) makes this plausible, especially if he maintains his media presence via platforms like Truth Social or friendly outlets like Fox News.

Limitations:
The proxy would still be the legal president, and their independence could diverge from Trump’s wishes over time, especially under political pressure or personal ambition.

3. Repeal of the 22nd Amendment

The most direct—but least realistic—path to a legal third term would be repealing the 22nd Amendment, allowing Trump to run for election again in 2028.

Scenario:
Congress, with a Republican supermajority in both the House and Senate, proposes an amendment to repeal the 22nd, which is then ratified by 38 state legislatures. Trump could then run in 2028 and, if elected, serve a third term.

Feasibility:
This is highly improbable. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress (currently 290 House votes and 67 Senate votes) and ratification by three-fourths of the states (38). As of March 19, 2025, Republicans hold the presidency and likely a Senate majority (based on 2024 gains), but achieving such overwhelming control—and bipartisan support—is a tall order. Democrats and even some Republicans would likely oppose this, citing the amendment’s origins in preventing executive overreach (post-FDR). The process would also take years, likely extending beyond the 2028 election cycle.

Historical Context:
Proposals to repeal the 22nd Amendment have surfaced sporadically (e.g., by Rep. Jose Serrano in 2009), but none have gained traction.

4. Serving as Speaker of the House and Ascending Via Succession

The Speaker of the House is second in the line of succession after the Vice President. Trump could theoretically be elected Speaker and assume the presidency if both the president and vice president were removed or incapacitated.

Scenario:
After his second term ends in 2029, Trump runs for a House seat in 2030 (or is appointed to a vacant seat) and is elected Speaker by a Republican-controlled House. If a crisis removes the president and vice president (e.g., death, resignation, or impeachment), Trump could become president.

Feasibility:
The Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a sitting member of Congress, so Trump could theoretically be elected Speaker without running for office. However, this requires a GOP House majority willing to install him and a rare double-vacancy event. Politically, this would be contentious and could trigger legal challenges or public unrest.

Legal Note:
Like the VP succession scenario, the 22nd Amendment’s election limit wouldn’t apply, though courts might scrutinize the intent.

5. Temporary Assumption of Power Under Emergency Provisions

The 25th Amendment allows the Vice President and Cabinet to declare a president temporarily unable to discharge duties, transferring power to the VP. A creative (though unlikely) scenario could involve Trump in a supporting role.

Scenario:
Trump is Vice President or a Cabinet member in 2029 under a loyal president. If that president is temporarily incapacitated (e.g., medical emergency), Trump could briefly assume presidential powers.

Feasibility:
This is limited to short-term situations and requires Trump to hold an appointed role, subject to Senate confirmation. It’s not a “term” in the traditional sense and would end once the president recovers.

Then I followed up by asking about redefining what “Term” or “Term Limit” means, because that’s why Bannon implied would be the key.

Here’s what it told me:

Redefining what constitutes a “term” or “term limit” under the 22nd Amendment to allow President Trump to serve a “third term” is an intriguing theoretical exercise, but it would face immense legal, political, and practical challenges. The 22nd Amendment states:

“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,”

This ties the restriction explicitly to elections rather than time served or the concept of a “term” in a flexible sense. Any attempt to reinterpret this language would likely require either a radical judicial ruling or a legislative workaround, both of which stretch the bounds of current constitutional norms. Let’s explore some hypothetical ways this could be approached and assess their realism.

1. Judicial Redefinition of “Term”

Approach:
One approach could involve a legal challenge asserting that the word “term” in the 22nd Amendment is ambiguous and should be redefined—say, to mean something other than a standard four-year presidential term—or that “elected more than twice” could be interpreted differently based on context.

Scenario:
Trump, after his second term (2025–2029), seeks to run in 2028, claiming that external factors (e.g., his first term being “disrupted” by investigations or his second term facing unique circumstances) mean one of his terms shouldn’t “count.” His legal team could argue before the Supreme Court that “term” should be redefined to exclude partial service or that “elected” applies only to uninterrupted, fully empowered terms.

Feasibility:
This is a long shot. The 22nd Amendment’s text is clear, and its intent—codified after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms—is well-documented in legislative history. Courts, even a conservative-leaning Supreme Court (as of March 19, 2025, with Trump-appointed justices like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett), tend to favor plain-text readings over creative reinterpretations. The amendment’s use of “elected” ties it to the act of winning an election, not the quality or duration of service. A ruling redefining “term” would risk undermining constitutional stability and invite accusations of judicial activism.

Precedent:
There’s no direct precedent for redefining constitutional terms this way. Cases like U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton(1995) reinforce that constitutional qualifications for office are strict and not easily bypassed.

2. Counting Nonconsecutive Terms Differently

Approach:
Another angle might involve arguing that the 22nd Amendment’s limit applies only to consecutive terms, allowing Trump to serve a third nonconsecutive term (e.g., 2017–2021, 2025–2029, and then 2033–2037 after a break).

Scenario:
Trump runs in 2032, asserting that because his terms are nonconsecutive, the amendment’s restriction doesn’t apply—or that “more than twice” should be read as consecutive elections. His team could point to Grover Cleveland, who served two nonconsecutive terms (1885–1889 and 1893–1897) before the 22nd Amendment existed, as a historical analogy.

Feasibility:
This interpretation contradicts the amendment’s plain language, which limits total elections to the presidency (two), not their sequence. Cleveland’s case predates the 22nd Amendment, and its ratification was explicitly designed to prevent such scenarios, consecutive or not. Courts would likely reject this, and even if a state allowed Trump on the ballot, opponents could sue to enforce the amendment, with a near-certain loss for Trump’s side.

3. Legislative Workaround via Election Timing

Approach:
A creative legislative tactic might involve manipulating election processes or term lengths to argue that a “third term” isn’t technically a third election under the 22nd Amendment.

Scenario:
Congress, with a Republican majority, passes a law adjusting presidential term lengths (e.g., extending Trump’s second term to six years due to a “national emergency”) or reconfiguring election cycles. Alternatively, states under GOP control could certify Trump as a candidate in 2028, claiming a redefinition of what a “term” entails at the state level.

Feasibility:
This is constitutionally dubious. The Constitution (Article II, Section 1) sets presidential terms at four years, and altering that requires an amendment, not a statute. The 22nd Amendment’s election limit would still apply regardless of term duration. States can’t unilaterally redefine federal constitutional terms, as federal law (and the Supreme Court) supersedes under the Supremacy Clause. Any attempt to extend a term via emergency powers would face immediate legal challenges and likely fail, as no such authority exists in the Constitution.

4. Partial Term Loophole

Approach:
A more nuanced argument could focus on serving less than a full term, suggesting that the 22nd Amendment only counts full four-year terms toward the limit.

Scenario:
Trump resigns midway through his second term (e.g., in 2027), allowing his Vice President to finish it. He then runs in 2028, arguing that he was only “elected” twice and served less than two full terms, citing the amendment’s silence on partial terms.

Feasibility:
This misreads the amendment, which limits elections, not time served. The text says “elected to the office of the President more than twice,” not “served two full terms.” Historical examples—like Richard Nixon resigning in 1974—don’t reset the count; Gerald Ford didn’t get a free pass to run twice more. Courts would almost certainly rule that an election is an election, regardless of resignation.

5. Popular Movement to Reinterpret via Referendum

Approach:
A grassroots or political movement could push for a non-binding redefinition of “term limits” through public pressure or state-level referendums, claiming a democratic mandate overrides strict constitutional wording.

Scenario:
Trump supporters launch a campaign asserting that “term” should mean something like “consecutive service” or “uninterrupted power,” backed by state resolutions or a national referendum. This pressures lawmakers or courts to reinterpret the 22nd Amendment.

Feasibility:
This lacks legal teeth. The Constitution can’t be amended or reinterpreted by popular vote alone—it requires the formal process (two-thirds of Congress, three-fourths of states). Public sentiment might influence politics, but courts don’t bend constitutional text to match opinion polls. The 22nd Amendment’s clarity would prevail.

RELATED REPORT:

President Trump AGAIN Teases Running For a Third Term!

President Trump AGAIN Teases Running For a Third Term!

Four more years?

Four more years?

It might not be (currently) Constitutionally possible, but a lot can change in four years and perhaps we will indeed get a THIRD Trump Term.

Can you even imagine?

There's a reason President Trump keeping hinting and joking about it....spoiler alert: he's not really joking.

Watch here:

Than any Republican president ever. Close.

Almost—almost 40 percent of the vote.

Now, I'm not—I won't be happy the next time.

Should I run again? You tell me.

There's your controversy right there. There's your—

Thank you.

You'll be seeing that.

You're going to see that tonight, Tim, on television.

Backup here with captions:

The message is spreading and catching on....

This was at CPAC:

This is now at least the fourth time he has brought up the concept.

Here are the prior ones:

TRUMP 2028? President Trump Hints at a THIRD TERM While Speaking To House Republicans!

TRUMP 2028? President Trump Hints at a THIRD TERM While Speaking To House Republicans!

This is so good...

Democrats are melting down and losing their minds and I'm just sitting here comfy and having a great laugh!

While speaking with House Republicans this morning, President Trump reportedly said “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say ‘he’s so good we got to figure something else out!’”

Incredible man, the level of command he has over the media is unreal.

Not only does this plant the POSSIBILITY of that idea out there and takes it from the impossible into the "unlikely but possible" but it also trolls Democrats to no end!

Take a look:

TRUMP 2028?

Oh my....

Democrats truly are in full blown meltdown mode over the comment....

Here is little Brian Krassen having a full blown hissy fit on Twitter:

Hey Brian, looks like he hooked you big time!

But....there is a possibility it could happen, and I think that's why you're truly so worked up.

To quote little Brian Krassen: "I know you will all say, "he was just joking," but this is not something you even remotely consider joking about."

Why not Brian?

If he does SUCH a good job these next four years that Congress decides to pass a new Amendment revoking the 22nd Amendment, what's the problem?

What's the problem if it follows all the official channels?

Other than your head might explode...

Listen to this little Karen yipping about "this is not something you even remotely joke about!"

Cry more Brian, cope harder!  It's going to be a ROUGH four years for you....

President Trump himself says he loves to do some trolling:

You're the best at it sir, you have no equal!

Sadly, there is no known video of the clip in question....

We were covering the event live this morning and then all news feeds cut out just a few minutes into the event:

BREAKING: President Trump Addresses Republicans In The House

BREAKING: President Trump Addresses Republicans In The House

President Trump is back in DC and he's not wasting any time!

He's already met with Joe Biden for a historic White House meeting where Joe Biden was absolutely beaming ear-to-ear.

More on that in a minute, but first we go to his victory speech to the Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Starting with his opening remark -- "Isn't it nice to win?"


Source link

Search