Let me start off by saying I don’t think Donald Trump’s offhand remarks about seeking a third term as president are very helpful. Heck, I cringed at the news that Trump 2028 merch is for sale in Trump’s official online store.
Maybe it’s just trolling. I didn’t like it when Obama joked about a third term, either. The 22nd Amendment explicitly limits presidents to two terms, and Trump’s rhetoric, often delivered with a provocative smirk, doesn’t look good.
That said, with the courts persistently blocking Trump from exercising the powers of the presidency, does he have a point about needing more time to govern?
If a president is elected but not allowed to enact their agenda, what’s the point of elections? If district court judges can overrule executive authority, then no president, Republican or Democrat, really is the chief executive; are they? The problem is that no president has faced more nationwide injunctions than Donald Trump, and it seems as if every day, we’re getting a new, unprecedented ruling that undermines executive authority.
These injunctions aren’t just procedural hurdles; they effectively neuter the executive branch’s ability to function. Presidents are elected to execute a vision, yet Trump has been repeatedly hamstrung by unelected judges that have been hand-selected by activists to get the result they want. As such, the argument for a third term—while constitutionally dubious—almost seems fair when you consider the cumulative impact. If Trump’s lawful orders are perpetually blocked, the democratic mandate is undermined. Why elect someone if their authority is nullified by endless lawsuits? Trump’s supporters argue he’s been denied the full scope of his presidency, and they’re not entirely wrong.
Recommended: WATCH: Scott Jennings Brings Reality Check to Judge Dugan's Arrest
The pattern of judicial overreach raises questions about fairness. When district courts issue nationwide injunctions, they effectively set policy for the entire country, a role traditionally reserved for Congress or the Supreme Court. The judiciary’s increasing activism risks eroding the separation of powers, leaving presidents like Trump in a bind: govern aggressively and face lawsuits, or do nothing and betray voters.
So does Trump legally deserve a third term? No. The Constitution is clear on that point. But if the Supreme Court doesn’t step in soon to rein in the growing lawlessness of the lower courts, I’m going to end up ordering one of those Trump 2028 hats myself.
At some point, we have to be honest: if district court judges can endlessly hamstring a sitting president’s ability to govern, then the presidency itself becomes little more than a ceremonial position. And if this weaponized judicial activism isn’t stopped now, you can be sure the next Democratic president will face the exact same treatment. It’s not a matter of if—it’s when.
I may not like Trump’s rhetoric about a third term, but the underlying frustration—that he was elected to lead, only to be tied down at every turn by activist courts—is completely understandable. The real danger isn’t Trump’s words; it’s a system that increasingly allows unelected judges to override the will of the American people. If the courts continue functioning as a de facto veto on executive authority, the argument for taking extraordinary measures only gets stronger.
The real solution isn’t a third term. It’s a serious reform of the judiciary to restore the constitutional balance of power. Until that happens, Trump’s provocations are going to keep resonating with millions of Americans who see what’s happening and know it can’t go on like this forever.
The judicial activism against presidential authority affects us all. Get the unfiltered truth about how courts are undermining our democracy with PJ Media VIP. Our exclusive analysis goes deeper than mainstream headlines, giving you insider perspectives on the battle for executive power. Use code FIGHT for 60% off and support fearless journalism that exposes judicial overreach.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member