[Labor Column] Constitutional Amendment to Extend the Term: Put Out the Spark for Good

"Trump will be president in 2028. People need to get used to that." That was what Steve Bannon, known as the chief strategist in the MAGA camp, said in an interview with The Economist last month. When the interviewer raised the constitutional issue and expressed disbelief, Bannon insisted there were many "alternatives." He also said that Trump "has to do at least one more to finish what he started." The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." It is generally interpreted as a ban on a third term, whether consecutive or not. Trump's bid for "president in 2028" would break that taboo. The problem is that such remarks are not coming out of nowhere.
The amendment bans only being "elected," not succeeding or being selected for the presidency. That has led to theories that in the 2028 election, one person could run as the presidential candidate and Trump as the vice presidential candidate, and after winning, the president could resign so that Trump would succeed to the office. Another scenario would have Trump elected Speaker of the House, after which both the president and vice president resign and Trump takes over the presidency. This would exploit the fact that the Speaker, who is third in the constitutional line of succession, does not have to be a member of the House.
That is also the argument laid out by prominent constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz in his March book, "Can Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term? A Bipartisan Legal Analysis." Dershowitz, relying on a literal reading, has probed the Constitution's loopholes. He points out that the Constitution itself is ambiguous enough to allow four or five workarounds, and warns that if Americans do not want such legal maneuvers, they should amend the Constitution immediately. The idea has drawn fierce criticism as a dangerous attempt to undermine democracy and the spirit of the Constitution. There are also warnings that forcing through a third Trump term could plunge American society into extreme division and unrest, including an impeachment crisis, and lead to the "end of the republic." Bannon is surely aware of the criticism, but he still appears confident, saying, "When the time is right, I will reveal the plan." What he believes in is clear from this remark: "What matters is the will of the American people."
A similarly timed and worded remark was made in South Korea as well. At a press briefing on the 28th of last month, Speaker of the National Assembly Jung Sung-sik said, "The issue of a constitutional amendment to allow an incumbent president to seek reelection ultimately comes down to public opinion and the people's choice as sovereigns." As controversy grew, Jung posted that "an incumbent president is not subject to constitutional revision," and officials at Cheong Wa Dae made similar remarks. Still, the explanation is unconvincing. It is hard to imagine that the speaker of the National Assembly, who is pushing for constitutional revision, would make such an obvious slip of the tongue in response to a predictable question. It is only natural that people would interpret it as a trial balloon or an attempt to stir the waters. Although the remarks were later walked back, there are also views that the fire has not been fully extinguished.
At a National Assembly audit in October 2025, Minister of Government Legislation Woncheol Cho said that a constitutional amendment to allow an incumbent president to seek reelection is "constitutionally impossible, but ultimately a matter the people must decide." Former Prime Minister Kim Min-seok also argued in April that a presidential term of "five years is too short," citing the need to carry out state tasks. The phrase "five years is too short" has broad support among supporters of President Lee Jae-myung. That is why doubts about a constitutional amendment for an incumbent president's reelection are unavoidable. In April, during a meeting with the leaders of the ruling and opposition parties, President Lee said that "because the opposition has secured the blocking threshold for a constitutional amendment, a reelection amendment is impossible." That too is open to misinterpretation. It could be read to mean that a reelection amendment would be possible if the opposition did not hold the blocking threshold. Even talk within the ruling camp about a possible political realignment does not sound casual.
Article 128, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states that "a constitutional amendment for extending the term of office of the President or changing the number of consecutive terms shall not have effect for the President in office at the time of the proposal." This short sentence reflects the sovereign will to avoid repeating the dark history of leaders rewriting the Constitution to extend their own terms. Any attempt to change that by invoking the "people's decision" or the "people's choice" is no different from the ghost of dictatorship. The so-called Four-Fifths Amendment, the third-term amendment, and the Yushin Constitution all claimed to act in the name of the people.
I do not want to believe the speculation that if attempts to dismiss or drop the charges against President Lee fail, the ruling camp will push for a constitutional amendment. But if, by any chance, the ruling bloc were to pursue a reelection amendment for an incumbent president, the warning that society could be thrown into extreme division and unrest, leading to the "end of the republic," may not be limited to the United States. "There will never be a reelection amendment for an incumbent president." President Lee should make his position unmistakably clear and put an end to this pointless controversy.
[email protected] Editor-in-Chief Reporter