It started as a whisper behind closed doors — hints that some rules might not apply equally.
Then, it became a bold public claim: a former White House strategist announcing there is a blueprint to bring Donald Trump back to power in 2028, despite the clear constitutional limits. When someone with insider knowledge says, “there’s a plan,” it demands attention: what exactly is unfolding?
Steve Bannon, who served as senior strategist in the Trump White House, recently stated in an interview with The Economist (October 23, 2025) that Trump will return to the Oval Office in 2028. “He’s gonna get a third term. Trump is gonna be president in ’28, and people just need to get used to that,” Bannon declared.
When pressed about the obvious constitutional barrier — the Twenty‑second Amendment, which prohibits a person from being elected president more than twice — Bannon responded vaguely: “There are many different alternatives… at the appropriate time, we’ll lay out what the plan is.”
He further framed Trump as a figure of almost divine purpose: “He’s not perfect… he’s not churchy or particularly religious. But he’s an instrument of divine will,” Bannon said, emphasizing a vision of Trump beyond ordinary politics.
These remarks have surfaced amid growing public concern over potential power grabs. Protests under the “No Kings” banner have taken place in roughly 2,500 U.S. cities, reflecting fears of authoritarian overreach. Trump himself mocked the demonstrations on social media, posting AI-generated videos depicting himself wearing a crown.
Legal experts note that the 22nd Amendment is explicit: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”
While speculative scenarios exist — for instance, a former president running as vice president or attempting a constitutional amendment — scholars agree such paths are extremely unlikely and would face overwhelming legal, institutional, and political obstacles.
🧠 Conclusion
Whether Bannon’s comments are a serious plan or symbolic rhetoric, their public nature is concerning. They serve as a stark reminder: constitutional safeguards exist,
but they rely on the commitment of those in power to respect them. As political figures openly discuss ways to circumvent established rules, the question extends beyond legality:
it becomes a test of civic vigilance. In a democracy, the strength of institutions and the will of the people matter as much as what is written in law.