Can a US president run for a third term? The unexpected history of the two-term limit

The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951 to limit any US president to two elected terms in office. The rule began as a tradition set by George Washington, was broken by Franklin D Roosevelt’s four-term presidency, and remains one of the defining checks on presidential power today

Mt Rushmore in front of an American flag background.

Published: November 4, 2026 at 3:23 PM

Save

Since at least the end of the Second World War, the presidency of the United States has often been described as the single most powerful office in the world. But that power has limits, including the constitutional rule that no president may serve more than two terms in office.

Ad

This restriction, now enshrined in the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution, has shaped every election since 1951. But it wasn’t always the law. For much of American history, the two-term limit was an unwritten rule; a convention that rested on precedent rather than prescription.

How did that convention begin? How was it broken? And how has it since become constitutional law? The answers reveal an unexpected story of how the balance of power within the US’s democracy has evolved over the country’s 250 year history.

How did George Washington set the precedent for the two-term limit?

By stepping down after two terms in 1797, George Washington, the first president of the United States, established the unwritten rule: that no president should serve in the office for more than eight years. This began as a voluntary limit that later became a defining feature of American democracy.

Portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart, showing the first US president standing in a black coat with one arm outstretched.

George Washington, the first president of the United States, established the tradition of a two-term presidency when he declined to seek re-election in 1796, aged 64. Although the Constitution imposed no limit on presidential terms, Washington's decision set a precedent that would endure for nearly 150 years | Credit: Getty Images

Washington was elected unanimously in 1789 and again in 1792. When his second term ended in 1797, he chose not to seek re-election. But he could have done.

At the time, there was no constitutional restriction on presidential tenure. The framers of the Constitution debated the question in 1787, but ultimately decided against imposing any limit, trusting that the democratic electoral process itself would provide sufficient restraint to any overreaching or dictatorial ambitions. Washington’s decision to step down was therefore entirely voluntary and highly symbolic.

His popularity made the act even more significant. By the mid-1790s, Washington was the most admired man in the country. Many Americans, including members of Congress, wanted him to serve for life, believing his leadership indispensable to the young republic’s emergence and survival. To remain in office indefinitely would have been both possible and popular. But Washington refused. He hoped his example would set a template for future leaders to follow.

Thomas Jefferson, who became the third US president, later observed the influence that Washington’s retirement had over subsequent presidents, including himself. In 1805, he wrote:

“The danger is that the indulgence and attachments of the people will keep a man in the chair after he becomes a dotard, that reelection through life shall become habitual, and election for life follow that. Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after 8 years. I shall follow it … Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the constitution.”

This voluntary limit distinguished the American presidency from the hereditary monarchies of Europe and symbolised the country’s commitment to republican ideals.

By stepping aside, Washington confirmed the notion that even the most capable or popular president should relinquish power.

Read more | Alexander Hamilton vs Thomas Jefferson: the rise and fall of America's founding fathers

How did 19th- and 20th-century presidents uphold Washington’s example?

From Thomas Jefferson to fifth president, James Monroe, every early president followed Washington’s model. Later figures such as Ulysses S Grant and Theodore Roosevelt tested the two-term limit, but failed in their bids for a third term.

Black-and-white portrait of Ulysses S Grant wearing his Union Army military uniform during the American Civil War.

Ulysses S Grant served two terms as US president between 1869 and 1877. In 1880, he attempted to return to the White House for a third term, but failed to secure the Republican presidential nomination, which went instead to James A Garfield | Credit: Getty Images

Washington’s voluntary retirement quickly became a moral touchstone for the early republic, and his successors were careful to abide by it.

Jefferson, elected in 1800 and again in 1804, reinforced the precedent by declining to seek a third term in 1808. He wrote that remaining longer would invite the suspicion of personal ambition (a quality that was discouraged in presidential candidates well into the 19th century). Jefferson regarded rotation in office as essential to republican government.

James Madison and James Monroe, the next two presidents, followed the same pattern. Each served two terms and then retired voluntarily, treating Washington’s example as an unspoken rule. By the time Monroe left office in 1825, the two-term limit had become an established expectation, while not a law.

However, some presidents did test this convention.

Andrew Jackson, the seventh president, whose populist appeal made him a dominant political figure, considered a third term but ultimately decided in favour of preserving the tradition. Later, Ulysses S Grant, hero of the American Civil War and the 18th president from 1869 to 1877, entertained the possibility of another campaign in 1880. The suggestion, however, provoked a national backlash, and though Grant sought the nomination at that year’s Republican convention, he was ultimately defeated on the 36th ballot.

Later, the 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, returned in 1912 as a third-party candidate (after voluntarily stepping down in 1909), which was seen as a breach of custom. Roosevelt argued that his interrupted tenure made him eligible again, but many voters disagreed. His defeat by Woodrow Wilson reaffirmed the sense that seeking a third term – even if it wasn’t a direct continuation of a current presidency – carried political risk.

By the early 20th century, then, the two-term limit had become part of the nation’s political identity: presidents could wield enormous authority while in office, but they were expected to give it up willingly when their time came.

Why wasn’t the two-term limit included in the Constitution?

The framers chose not to impose a legal limit, believing that regular elections would be enough to prevent tyranny, with statesman Alexander Hamilton arguing that capable presidents should remain eligible for re-election.

Illustration of American Founding Father Alexander Hamilton seated at a writing desk, holding a quill and a rolled document.

Alexander Hamilton, one of America's Founding Fathers, argued against imposing limits on the number of terms a president could serve. Writing in The Federalist Papers in 1788, Hamilton defended the principle of presidential re-election, believing that experienced and successful leaders should be allowed to remain in office if voters wished | Credit: Getty Images

The framers of the Constitution debated the question of presidential tenure at length during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but they never reached a consensus on limits. The resulting absence of any restriction in the final document reflected both philosophical principle and political compromise.

Hamilton himself, writing in his essay Federalist No. 72, argued strongly against imposing term limits. He believed that re-eligibility was essential for good government, allowing capable leaders to continue serving if they had public consent. To forbid re-election, he wrote, would amount to “depriving the community of the advantage of the experience gained by the chief magistrate”.

Hamilton thought the true safeguard was found within the regular check of elections: if a president became corrupt or unpopular, the voters could simply remove him.

Others among the framers shared Hamilton’s reasoning. They feared that a ban on consecutive service might discourage presidents from performing well, since they would have no incentive to win the people’s renewed approval. Many delegates also felt that experienced leadership might be crucial in future crises, especially in the republic’s early years.

Some, however, were uneasy with unlimited tenure. Figures such as George Mason and Edmund Randolph, Virginia delegates to the Constitutional Convention, warned that allowing indefinite re-election risked creating an elective monarchy.

The final compromise left the issue to custom and precedent.

Ultimately, the spirit of the original Constitution did not endorse a fixed limit on presidential service. It rested on the assumption that electoral accountability would prevent any one person from clinging to power indefinitely. The two-term tradition that followed was a political convention, not a constitutional one.

For nearly 150 years, that convention held.

How did Franklin D Roosevelt break the two-term tradition?

Amid economic depression and world war, the 32nd president Franklin D Roosevelt sought and won four consecutive elections between 1932 and 1944, arguing that national crises required continuity of leadership.

US President Franklin D Roosevelt seated at a desk in the White House in February 1942, pointing towards a large world map during a wartime radio address.

Franklin D Roosevelt, pictured delivering a wartime radio address in February 1942, was the only US president to serve more than two terms. His unprecedented tenure prompted renewed calls for a constitutional limit on presidential terms, culminating in the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951 | Credit: Getty Images

By the late 1930s, the United States was facing an unprecedented pair of crises. Domestically, the Great Depression had left millions unemployed and had shaken faith in the nation’s institutions. Abroad, the rise of European fascism and the growing threat of war raised fears of instability on a global scale.

Franklin D Roosevelt, first elected president in 1932, had come to embody national resilience through his New Deal agenda and his optimistic style of leadership. His landslide re-election in 1936 seemed to confirm that he enjoyed both political support, alongside a personal mandate to guide the nation through difficult times.

So when 1940 approached, Roosevelt faced a tough decision.

No sitting president had officially put himself forward to the public to seek a third term, and the tradition established by Washington remained embedded in US culture. Even within his own Democratic Party, senior figures were reportedly uneasy about breaking with it. For months, Roosevelt refused to say whether he would run again, hinting that he preferred retirement but suggesting that circumstances might compel otherwise.

Those circumstances changed dramatically with the outbreak of the Second World War. By mid-1940, Nazi Germany had occupied France and much of Europe. Many Democrats and foreign-policy advisers urged Roosevelt to remain in office, arguing that his experience was essential to preserving American security and preparing for the possibility of US involvement in the conflict.

So, in July 1940, Roosevelt allowed his name to be placed in nomination at the Democratic convention in Chicago. The move was framed as a reluctant response to extraordinary times rather than an act of personal ambition.

The Republicans made the two-term issue central to their campaign, but Roosevelt won comfortably in November, defeating Wendell Willkie with 54.7 per cent of the popular vote. The result signalled that, in a period of national emergency, voters were willing to prioritise stability over precedent.

When he sought a fourth term in 1944, the context was again exceptional: the United States was fully engaged in global war, and victory was close at hand. But Roosevelt’s health was visibly declining as he suffered with polio. He campaigned less vigorously than before but retained immense symbolic authority as wartime leader. He was re-elected again, defeating Thomas E Dewey, but died just months into his fourth term on 12 April 1945.

Roosevelt’s presidency lasted 12 years.

His supporters saw his extended tenure as a product of necessity, saying that his experience guided the country through depression and war. Meanwhile, critics viewed it as a dangerous concentration of power that undermined the founding principle of rotation in office.

Either way, Roosevelt’s decision changed American political expectations. What had been an informal tradition since Washington now became a constitutional question, and one that Congress would soon move to settle through law: the 22nd Amendment.

How and why was the 22nd Amendment created?

Ratified in 1951, the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution legally restricted presidents to two elected terms, reflecting postwar concerns about executive power and enshrining Washington’s voluntary example into constitutional law.

Franklin D Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms had unsettled many in Congress. The prospect of another president serving indefinitely, even under the justification of crisis, seemed to violate the spirit of limited government that Washington had first embodied.

Following Roosevelt’s death, calls to formalise a two-term limit began almost immediately. When the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress in the 1946 midterm elections, they made a constitutional amendment one of their priorities. The proposal also attracted support from conservative Southern Democrats, many of whom had opposed Roosevelt’s expanding executive power during the New Deal years.

The result was the 22nd Amendment, introduced in 1947 by the 80th Congress. Its key provision stated that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” and that any vice president who assumed the presidency for more than two years of another’s term could only be elected once more. This effectively capped any presidency at ten years.

The amendment passed the House of Representatives by 285 votes to 121 and cleared the Senate that same year. Ratification by the states was completed on 27 February 1951.

The measure wasn’t retroactive. Harry S Truman, Roosevelt’s successor, was explicitly exempted from its provisions. But, though eligible to run again in 1952, he chose not to, ending speculation about whether he might test the new limit.

Supporters of the amendment viewed these changes as a necessary restoration of Washington’s precedent and a safeguard against the concentration of executive power. Opponents, however, argued that it restricted democratic choice. Truman himself disagreed with the amendment, insisting that if the people wished to re-elect a president, they should be free to do so.

In practice, the 22nd Amendment has proved durable and broadly accepted. By turning a convention into constitutional law, it formalised one of the unwritten foundations of the presidency in a democratic society: power, no matter how effectively wielded, or how popular its holder, must be temporary.

How has the two-term limit worked in practice since 1951?

Since the 22nd Amendment took effect, no president has served more than two terms, and none has yet made a serious attempt to challenge the constitutional limit.

The first president directly affected by the new rule was 34th president, Dwight D Eisenhower, elected in 1952 and again in 1956. His popularity and success in office made him an early test case for the amendment’s durability. But when asked near the end of his second term whether he might consider seeking a third, Eisenhower dismissed the idea, stating that the law was now clear.

Since then, other presidents have voiced occasional hints of frustration, but have not genuinely opposed the amendment. Ronald Reagan, the 40th president, left office in 1989 with high approval ratings and joked that he could win a third term, while some of his supporters suggested that the limit deprived voters of continuity in leadership. In the 21st century, 44th president Barack Obama faced occasional public petitions for a third term but consistently affirmed his belief in the constitutional limit.

Bill Clinton, reflecting in the early 2000s, proposed that a modified rule allowing non-consecutive service might suit the modern age, where longer life expectancy and experience could benefit governance.

But none made any move to test the amendment’s boundaries.

What is a ‘lame duck presidency’?

A ‘lame duck presidency’ (which refers to the waning influence of a leader approaching mandatory departure) has become a recurring feature of American political life.

The 22nd Amendment has also shaped political strategy. Knowing that re-election marks the maximum tenure possible, second-term presidents often focus on legacy and foreign policy, free from immediate electoral pressure but constrained by reduced leverage in Congress – hence, the lame duck.

Despite intermittent discussion in Congress about repealing or revising the 22nd Amendment, no effort has gained serious traction.

The two-term cap has become an accepted part of American political culture, reinforcing the notion that presidential power must always yield to the rotation of democracy.

Who was the greatest President of the United States in history?

 

Seven historians put forward their nominations for the most accomplished leader to have sat in the White House. Membership exclusive – read now

View of the White House, home to the US President

Could a president run for a third term today?

Only a new constitutional amendment could allow a president to run for a third term, though scholars have speculated about technical loopholes in the 22nd Amendment that could make a third term possible.

One theoretical route to a third term concerns the vice presidency.

Some scholars argue that, in principle, a two-term former president could be elected vice president, since the 22nd Amendment bars only election to the presidency, not gaining the office through the line of succession. Then, as vice president, the former-two-term president could ascend to the presidency.

Another possibility would be for a two-term president to seek election to a different office that is in the direct line of presidential succession, such as Speaker of the House or Secretary of State. Again, this would almost certainly be viewed as contrary to the intent of the 22nd Amendment, which was designed to prevent any single individual from exercising presidential power beyond two terms, regardless of mechanism.

The only legitimate way to overturn the two-term limit would be through a new constitutional amendment. This would require approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states, an effectively insurmountable political challenge.

Ad

While legal scholars can imagine loopholes in theory, the practical and constitutional reality is that a third term today would be against the spirit of the Constitution, via the 22nd Amendment, and likely illegal, without a deliberate national decision to change the Constitution itself.

Authors

James OsborneSenior content producer

James Osborne is a senior content producer at HistoryExtra

Ad

Ad

Loading...

Ad

Loading...