Katie Miller, spouse of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and former administration official, made waves during a recent Fox News segment with an audacious proposition that revealed the growing comfort among certain Trump allies with disregarding constitutional limitations. Speaking directly to viewers, she issued a provocative challenge to Vice President Kamala Harris, urging her to seek the Democratic nomination for the 2028 presidential election. Her request, however, carried a significant constitutional blind spot that went unchallenged by the program's host. Miller framed her appeal as a desire for an electoral rematch between former President Donald Trump and Harris, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Trump has already reached the constitutional limit for presidential service. The moment captured the increasingly brazen attitude among certain Trump allies who appear willing to openly disregard established democratic guardrails for political theater and partisan point-scoring.
The 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution stands as an unambiguous roadblock to Miller's proposed scenario. Ratified in 1951 following Franklin D. Roosevelt's unprecedented four-term presidency, the amendment explicitly states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." Donald Trump has already secured two electoral victories, in 2016 and 2024, placing him squarely within the prohibited category. Constitutional scholars across the political spectrum agree that this provision leaves no room for interpretation or creative legal maneuvering. The amendment's language is deliberately straightforward, designed to prevent precisely the kind of prolonged executive power concentration that Miller and her allies appear to be championing. Yet, during her television appearance, Miller presented the hypothetical 2028 contest as a foregone conclusion, treating Trump's eligibility as an assumption rather than an impossibility. This casual dismissal of constitutional text reflects a broader trend within certain political circles where foundational democratic principles are increasingly treated as negotiable obstacles rather than non-negotiable boundaries that protect the republic from authoritarian overreach.
The former president himself has actively fueled speculation about a third term, creating an atmosphere where Miller's comments seem less like isolated rambling and more like coordinated messaging from within Trump's orbit. In early October, Trump told reporters, "I would love to do it," when questioned about circumventing term limits. He added, "Am I not ruling it out? You'll have to tell me," a characteristically ambiguous statement that invites interpretation while maintaining plausible deniability. These remarks, coming from the sitting president, carry weight far beyond typical political bluster. They signal to supporters that constitutional constraints are subject to challenge, particularly when backed by sufficient political will and popular support. Trump's history of testing democratic norms suggests these aren't merely offhand comments but part of a deliberate strategy to normalize discussions that were once considered beyond the pale in American political discourse, gradually shifting the Overton window toward acceptance of unconstitutional power grabs.
Miller is far from alone in promoting this constitutional fantasy. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon has been particularly vocal, declaring last year that "Trump is going to be president in '28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that." Bannon promised that "At the appropriate time, we'll lay out what the plan is," suggesting coordinated efforts behind the scenes to circumvent or override constitutional limitations. Legislative support has emerged from figures like Florida State Representative Randy Fine, who has publicly urged Congress to repeal the relevant statutes entirely, and Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles, who has proposed amending the Constitution to allow Trump—and only Trump—to serve again. This personalized approach to constitutional modification represents a radical departure from traditional American governance, where laws apply equally to all citizens regardless of political stature or popularity. The specificity of Ogles' proposal, targeting a single individual, echoes historical patterns of authoritarian regimes where legal systems are manipulated to benefit specific leaders, undermining the rule of law.
The underlying political strategy appears twofold: first, to keep Trump politically relevant beyond his constitutional term, maintaining his grip on the Republican Party and national conversation; and second, to bait Democratic opponents into engaging with a fundamentally illegitimate premise, thereby lending it credibility through acknowledgment. By taunting Harris specifically, Miller attempts to frame the political conversation around a fictional rematch rather than the constitutional impossibility of Trump's candidacy. This tactic shifts focus from legal constraints to partisan combat, where emotional appeals and tribal loyalty often trump factual accuracy and constitutional fidelity. Fox host Sean Hannity's complicity in this narrative—offering to help Miller contact Harris rather than questioning her constitutional premise—demonstrates how media platforms can enable the normalization of anti-democratic ideas through passive acceptance and performative agreement, failing their role as watchdogs of democracy.
What began as political theater now threatens to erode public understanding of constitutional limitations and the very principles of democratic governance. When prominent figures casually propose violating term limits, they desensitize citizens to democratic guardrails that have protected American governance for generations. The 22nd Amendment exists precisely to prevent the concentration of power that Miller and her allies now champion, a safeguard born from historical lessons about the dangers of entrenched executive authority. Whether sincere or performative, these continued references to a Trump 2028 campaign represent a dangerous flirtation with authoritarian precedent that should concern Americans across the political spectrum. American democracy depends on respecting constitutional boundaries, not treating them as optional suggestions to be overcome through political pressure, legislative manipulation, or sheer force of will. The casualness with which these proposals are floated signals a troubling shift in how political elites view their relationship to the rule of law.