A burgeoning idea gaining traction in the United States is the possibility of drafting an entirely new Constitution, once considered an unthinkable concept.
With escalating political tensions, a growing number of individuals believe that the foundational document of the nation, written over 235 years ago, may not be adequately equipped to address modern-day issues. Various groups from diverse political backgrounds have begun discussing potential elements of a new American Constitution.
As President Donald Trump has started on his second term, queries abound regarding his capacity to amend the nation’s founding document. Notwithstanding his hints at potentially seeking alterations to the Constitution, including the possibility of a third term candidacy, experts argue these aspirations face formidable challenges.
In January 2025, Andy Ogles, a Republican Representative from Tennessee, tabled a resolution seeking to modify the U.S. Constitution to enable Trump to serve a third term as president. The resolution aims to amend the 22nd Amendment, which currently restricts presidents to two elected terms, to permit Trump and future presidents the opportunity to be elected for a third term.
The proposed amendment seeks to revise the language to state that no individual can serve as president “more than three times” and that no person can “be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms.”
However, constitutional scholars emphasize that the process of amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult. It requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate, followed by the endorsement of three-fourths of all states – currently 38 out of 50 states.
Since 1992, over 1,400 proposed amendments have been presented in Congress, yet none have secured the required two-thirds vote in both chambers to proceed to the states for ratification. The last amendment to receive approval from Congress and submitted to the states was the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment in 1978, which did not receive the necessary number of state ratifications.
Trump has publicly toyed with the idea of serving beyond the two-term limit on multiple occasions, although some suggest these comments may be tongue-in-cheek or meant to provoke. Despite his intentions, legal experts widely agree that circumventing the 22nd Amendment would be extremely challenging.
Various analysts have proposed several theoretical paths Trump could explore to extend his presidency beyond the constitutional two-term limit. These include formally amending the Constitution, as Rep. Ogles has suggested, exploiting a potential loophole by running for vice president and then ascending to the presidency (a legally questionable action due to the 12th Amendment’s stipulation that no one ineligible for the presidency can be elected vice president), challenging the 22nd Amendment in court (a legally dubious action with no historical precedent), or simply defying constitutional restrictions (an unconstitutional action). Legal experts concur that these paths face virtually insurmountable obstacles.
“Despite these scenarios facing significant legal and practical challenges, the erosion of democratic norms and institutions in the U.S. and abroad suggests that the prospect of Trump serving a third term should not be dismissed,” says an analysis from Politico Magazine.
However, other experts stress that American democratic institutions remain robust. Vox highlights three key factors that make an authoritarian takeover challenging in the United States: the rigidity of the Constitution and its difficulty to amend, the firm presidential term limit established by the 22nd Amendment, and the country’s growing diversity, which complicates any single party’s attempt to maintain power by appealing to a narrow segment of the electorate.
Beyond presidential term limits, Trump has expressed support for other constitutional changes, particularly regarding the Second Amendment. In February 2025, the White House published a fact sheet titled “President Donald J. Trump Is Protecting Americans’ Second Amendment Rights,” which included the signing of an executive order to end what the administration characterized as federal infringement on gun rights.
Constitutional scholars suggest that while Trump may not be able to directly alter the Constitution, his influence on the Supreme Court and other federal courts could reshape constitutional interpretation. Time Magazine notes that a judiciary influenced by Trump “could erode rights like freedom of the press” through their interpretations of constitutional provisions, even without formal amendments.
While formal constitutional changes confront steep hurdles, presidents can influence constitutional interpretation through executive actions and judicial appointments. Trump’s agenda appears to be more concentrated on policy priorities such as tax reductions, immigration limitations, and curtailing the power of government agencies rather than advocating for constitutional amendments.
The Constitution’s design of power separation and checks and balances means that even presidents with a strong desire to overhaul the constitutional order confront significant institutional constraints. These structural elements, coupled with the difficulty of the amendment process, create substantial barriers for any president seeking to fundamentally change America’s founding document.
There is a legal mechanism to create a new Constitution, known as an Article V Convention. If 34 states (two-thirds of all states) request it, Congress must convene a meeting where changes to the Constitution can be proposed. Although states have attempted this method hundreds of times throughout history, it has never been successfully used to amend the Constitution.
States can also petition Congress to call a convention to propose amendments.
Both sides of the political spectrum support the idea of a new Constitution, albeit for different reasons. Liberal groups seek expanded rights protections and voting reforms, while conservative groups typically aim to curtail the power of the federal government and address financial issues.
A proposition from the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights suggests substantial changes such as: “Moving the Bill of Rights to the beginning of the Constitution, adding provisions recognizing the rights of nature, rights of communities, and the right of self-governance at the local level,” and “eliminating the Electoral College and replacing it with the popular vote for president.”
However, not everyone believes amending the Constitution is advisable. The group Common Cause cautions that “an Article V Convention could result in the revocation of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and privacy, as well as economic instability.” They report that 28 states have already requested a convention, only six states shy of the required number.
A significant challenge is the lack of clear guidelines for such a convention. The Constitution does not provide guidance on how to select representatives, how voting should be conducted, or what topics are open for discussion.
Legal experts note that debates exist regarding whether the scope of a convention can be restricted and whether states can rescind their applications, indicating that numerous fundamental questions remain unresolved.
Some researchers believe Americans might find more common ground than expected on Constitutional revisions. A project uniting legal experts of varying political leanings found consensus on several key points: limiting presidential power, enhancing Congress’s ability to check the president, and establishing 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.
The Brennan Center for Justice acknowledges that while amending the Constitution carries risks, “it could also lead to important reforms, like it did with the 17th Amendment,” which changed the method of electing senators. To prevent a convention from overstepping its bounds, they suggest that “Congress should establish clear rules, ensure fair representation of all Americans, and retain control over what topics can be discussed.”
One comprehensive plan for a new constitution comes from the Democracy Journal. Their proposal includes “a three-chamber Congress with a House of Representatives, Senate, and Council of Indigenous Nations to represent the interests of Native American tribes,” and “an independent National Election Commission to oversee federal elections and limit the influence of private wealth.”
Reflecting on history, the creation of the original Constitution involved months of challenging discussions on significant issues such as the balance of power between large and small states and the question of slavery. The “Great Compromise” that resulted in our bicameral Congress (House and Senate) was only one of numerous challenging agreements required to finalize the document.
As political disagreements in America intensify, the question of whether to revise the Constitution remains crucial. Whether achieved through a complete overhaul or gradual modifications to the existing document, the debate centers on fundamental questions about how America’s democracy should function in the contemporary world.
