Is the Constitution just a suggestion now? California Governor Gavin Newsom dropped a bombshell on Wednesday, claiming that former President Donald Trump is mulling a run for a third term in 2028, despite clear constitutional barriers. This isn’t just idle chatter—it’s a direct challenge to the bedrock of our democratic system.
According to The Guardian, Newsom, speaking at a Politico summit in Sacramento, warned that Trump’s apparent disregard for the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms, signals a dangerous intent to cling to power.
Let’s rewind to February, when Newsom sat down with Trump in the Oval Office for a 90-minute chat. During that meeting, while discussing federal disaster aid for Los Angeles after deadly fires, Trump reportedly floated the idea of a third term, gesturing to a portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt—the only president to serve more than two terms. Well, imitation may be flattery, but breaking constitutional rules isn’t quite the same as FDR’s wartime exception.
Newsom didn’t stop there, recounting how Trump mused about ways to sidestep the 22nd Amendment, again citing Roosevelt as some kind of loophole precedent. If that’s not a red flag for conservatives who value the rule of law over personal ambition, what is?
Adding fuel to the fire, Newsom claims to have a stash of “Trump 2028” hats, gifted by supporters as a not-so-subtle jab. It’s almost funny—until you realize those hats might not be a joke but a preview of a very real power grab.
Trump himself hasn’t exactly doused these rumors. In a recent interview, he said, “No, probably not,” when asked about running again, but quickly added he’d “like to run” with his best-ever poll numbers. Sounds like a man keeping his options open, doesn’t it?
Then there’s the eyebrow-raising plan for a 90,000-square-foot state ballroom off the White House’s East Wing, complete with gold trim reminiscent of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Newsom quipped, “Who spends $200m on a ballroom at their home and then leaves the house?” A fair point—most folks don’t renovate a temporary residence with such permanence unless they plan to stick around.
Newsom’s tone has shifted lately, moving from cautious diplomacy to outright confrontation with Trump and his allies. He’s taken to online mockery and sharp rhetoric, urging Democrats to “fight fire with fire.” For conservatives, this sounds less like leadership and more like progressive posturing—but it does highlight the stakes.
Trump, for his part, fired back this week, calling Newsom a “nice guy who looks good” but also “incompetent.” It’s classic Trump—mix a compliment with a jab and watch the sparks fly. Still, it sidesteps the core issue of constitutional fidelity.
Newsom’s warnings aren’t new; he’s long argued that Trump seeks to hold onto power beyond legal limits. He points to past actions, like Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud in 2020 that fueled the January 6 Capitol attack by supporters, as evidence of this mindset. It’s a reminder that history often warns us before it repeats.
Even recent polling shows a mixed bag for Trump—approval ratings have dipped since his return to the White House, though voters view his second term slightly more favorably than his first. Does this embolden or deter a third-term fantasy? Only time will tell, but the numbers aren’t exactly screaming “mandate.”
Meanwhile, Newsom’s California is gearing up for a redistricting fight, with a November vote on overriding the state’s independent commission to redraw congressional maps in Democrats’ favor. He frames it as a counter to a Trump-supported gerrymander in Texas aiming for five more Republican seats. Both sides are playing hardball.
Newsom’s rhetoric reached a fever pitch at the summit, declaring, “Wake up. We’re losing this country in real time.” While conservatives might roll their eyes at the drama, there’s a kernel of concern here worth heeding—power unchecked is power abused.
At the heart of this clash is a fundamental question for all Americans, regardless of political stripe: Do we uphold the Constitution, or do we bend it for charisma and clout? Trump’s musings, whether serious or not, test the limits of our system. For conservatives who cherish limited government, that’s a line not easily crossed.
So, while Newsom may be sounding the alarm with a progressive megaphone, the underlying issue transcends party lines. The 22nd Amendment isn’t a suggestion—it’s a safeguard. Let’s hope everyone, from Mar-a-Lago to Sacramento, remembers that before 2028 rolls around.
