Video summary
Steve Bannon asserts in a recent discussion that Donald Trump's campaign for a third term is already underway, despite it being a direct violation of Article II, Section 1 and the Twenty-second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The transcript highlights Bannon's belief that legal teams are actively working on alternative definitions or interpretations of "term limits" to circumvent constitutional restrictions. He notes that while there was historically an unwritten gentleman's agreement preventing presidents from serving more than two terms, this practice led directly to the ratification of Amendment 22 in 1951 after Franklin D. Roosevelt served three non-consecutive terms and four consecutive ones. Bannon argues that current efforts by Trump's legal team involve "ultra executive theory" lawsuits designed to stretch constitutional interpretations rather than adhere strictly to the clear text limiting a president to two elected terms. The conversation delves into the structural dangers of allowing power to accumulate in any single office, drawing parallels between modern political ambitions and historical autocracies. The speaker emphasizes that the American experiment relies on checks and balances specifically designed to prevent benevolent dictators from evolving into despots over time. He cites Winston Churchill as a prime example; while credited with leading Britain through World War II, he was removed from power once the war ended because the public desired change rather than permanent rule by one individual. The discussion warns that even well-intentioned leaders can become convinced of their own infallibility and tyrannical when unchecked, potentially turning good policies into disastrous ones as they consolidate authority indefinitely. To illustrate the catastrophic consequences of removing term limits, the speaker references three specific historical texts: *The Gulag Archipelago*, *The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich*, and *Mao: The Untold Story*. These works are presented to demonstrate how governments without limitations on power have led to mass atrocities, noting that over 200 million people were killed by their own regimes in the 20th century alone. A particularly harrowing hypothetical scenario is described where a leader pardons students for beating teachers to death at school assemblies, an event based on historical occurrences during the Cultural Revolution under Mao Zedong, who orchestrated policies that starved approximately 45 million people to death. These examples serve as stark warnings against trusting politicians or even average citizens with unlimited power and absolute confidence in their own righteousness. Despite acknowledging his personal love for President Trump and admiration for his achievements, such as revitalizing the economy, the speaker maintains a deep distrust of any government structure that allows one person to rule forever. He argues that humans are prone to believing they know best once in power, leading them to push agendas without regard for limitations meant to protect society. While he concedes theoretically that if a supermajority truly desired constitutional amendments allowing perpetual re-elections, such changes could happen, he believes the odds of Democrats agreeing to this while Trump is still in office are zero. Ultimately, the speaker concludes that term limits are essential not because any specific leader will inevitably become evil, but because unchecked power corrupts absolutely and history proves that momentum often carries leaders toward tyranny if there are no hard stops to their tenure.
Read the full video transcript
Bannon insists that Trump is going to be
running for a third term even though it
is a direct violation of the
Constitution. You've got to hear this.
Well, a man like this comes along once
every century if we're lucky. We've got
him now. He's on fire and I'm a huge
supporter. I want to see him again in
2028.
>> You know he's term limited. How do you
think he gets another term?
We're working on it. I think we'll have
a I think we'll have a couple of
alternatives. Let's say that.
We'll we'll see we'll see what the
definition we'll see what the definition
of term limit is. We'll see what the
definition of term limit is. There's so
much power behind the scenes. Right now,
these guys are trying to figure out a
way to skirt around the Constitution.
We'll see what the definition of term is
or something like that.
>> We'll see what the definition of term
limit is. These people do not learn
their lesson. So, this, crazily enough,
would not be the first time that we had
somebody serve three terms. It has
happened before, which is why we put in
the amendment because we realized, "Oh,
they're just going to keep running." It
was always sort of a gentleman's
understanding that nobody would run for
more than two terms. Once they did it,
then they realized we have to enshrine
this. We did enshrine it. Play the Bill
Maher clip because this is exactly how I
feel. The Constitution. Can I read a
passage to you?
Here we go.
Amendment 22. No person shall be elected
to the office of the president more than
twice.
And yet you keep talking about Trump's
that maybe you should have this.
President Trump is going to run for a
third term and President Trump is going
to be elected again on the afternoon of
January 20th of 2029. He's going to be
president of the United States.
Okay, but but the thing I just read in
there
It seemed like there was no wiggle room
there. It seemed like it was just, you
know, eight or 10 words that said only
two times.
>> We have a a team of people that are
>> A team. How can a team do something
about that? How how what I don't care if
the team is 12 trillion people. The
words are still the words. Bill,
every day in federal courts, right now
in federal courts, there's 120 lawsuits
on what President Trump's doing for his
Article 2 rights
>> wild. This is ultra
>> executive theory. But he's chief
executive, he's commander in chief, and
he's chief magistrate and chief law
enforcement officer. There's 100 and
they're running to court every day. They
they sue President Trump all because
their interpretation of this The
interpretation of this is open for
interpretation.
>> be open? Could I have it back?
How could it I'm I'm I'm If they're able
to get a constitutional amendment
passed, cool. I stand by obviously there
is a way to amend the Constitution. We
want there to be a way to amend the
Constitution, but there are things that
are interpreted by the court where it's
like, okay, admittedly like this one's
maybe not as clear as we want. Like take
the Second Amendment for instance.
For a well-armed militia or whatever.
There's a lot to talk about with that.
This one is pretty clear. So, this feels
like people trying to skirt it. I don't
think people are being honest about why
we have term limits. The whole structure
of the US government was to stop power
from accruing too much. That power
corrupts, absolute power corrupts
absolutely, and if you let a monarch
happen, over time that power just
solidifies, solidifies, solidifies. This
is why I think deep state is the right
word. I think that it is problematic
that we let the power accumulate in all
of those ancillary positions, and we're
not being honest about what causes that
problem. And then, you get a despot, or
you certainly run the risk. Everybody
wants a benevolent dictator, and very
rarely do we get one. And just because
the first king is benevolent, doesn't
mean that the next king is going to be
benevolent. Now, all of a sudden, you've
got a Putin situation or a Xi situation.
I think it is an absolute [ __ ]
disaster. I will make a lot of noise on
this podcast if this man starts running
for a third term. That is a terrible
idea. The reason the American experiment
works is we understood, uh, these guys
can and will break bad. Hypothetically
speaking, walk me down a path if they
did somehow get the Constitution amended
and then he does run, is this now like
cuz what I don't want to happen is we
then ban Constitution amendments. So I
feel like I'm kind of stuck in the
middle cuz it's like I don't want him to
run, but I also don't want to say that
Constitution should never change ever
and it should be the one that has the
No, no, of course, of course. You know
what I mean? If if the people really
want to see all presidents, abstracted
from the one you like,
if they want to see all presidents be
able to keep running and keep being
elected, then as much as I will go on an
absolute tear to try to convince them
not to do this, this is a bad idea. If
that's what America wants, I'm not
arrogant enough to think that I should
be the one that's making this policy.
So, if we can get a supermajority, which
I will say the odds of are exactly zero
on this issue because there is no way
the Democrats are going to want to see,
while Trump is in office, unless he is
like so unbelievably unpopular at the
end of his term that they think, all
right, let's do it now so that we can
get our guy in office and run forever,
which I don't think they would do until
their guy is elected. But anyway, I
cannot fathom a world in which we can
agree and get a supermajority. So I feel
feel very protected by the structure of
the Constitution and our government that
this one won't get passed. That's why
I'm like, if Steve Bannon is trying to
do something via the court, I really I
like double hate this idea because one,
no matter how much I love the president,
I do not want to see them running for a
third term, no matter how many good
things they're delivering to the
American people, I distrust the nature
of governments. And so seeing them
solidify power, I know how quickly good
can turn bad because here's what will
happen. They get the economy going, it's
going in a good place, and then things
turn. And now they're making a string of
bad decisions. They're going to believe
in their soul, but I'm the guy that got
you all of this. And so I'm going to be
able to get you back. You You got to
give me time, bro. Like, what the [ __ ]
Think about this happening in the UK.
Winston Churchill gets you through World
War II. He's the only reason that
British people are not speaking German.
What do they do at the end of the war?
They boot him out of government. They
wanted somebody else. Not wartime
anymore. You were great at the war.
Thank you so much, but we're moving past
it. It is a bad idea for the simple fact
that humans become convinced that they
are right. People become tyrannical as
power consolidates, even if they don't
mean to be, because they think they're
right, they're going to keep pushing for
it. And unfortunately, we really do have
a propensity to just reelect the same
person we had before. And so momentum
carries you to a certain degree. It's
It's a bad idea. Bad idea. Chet's
pointing out the irony of Trump
promising term limits for Congress and
then going on this uh Dude, this This is
Everybody, burn this into your soul.
This is what humans do. This is how you
get the rules for thee and not for me.
People are inside their own head. They
really believe that they're right. They
don't want limitations on themselves.
They only want limitations on others. It
is an absolutely wild way to walk
through the world to me because it is so
obvious that anyone human can be so
wrong that if you don't have checks and
balances, that you could get into a
string of doing wrong things is just
really, really terrifying. And I'm
saying that as a CEO who is I'm the
emperor of Impact Theory. I can't be
fired. But what I remind myself of is
anybody who quits has literally just
fired me. They've said vote of no
confidence, I'm out.
And so I sit with that and I go, "Okay,
cool." Now, it doesn't mean that I'm
going to change what I'm doing. I may
think that they're wrong. I may think,
"Cool. I totally get it. Let's part
ways. You go do your thing." There's a
whole lot of reasons why somebody might
leave. But I do sit in the moment of
hmm, this is they have said I'm not the
best thing for their life at a minimum.
Now, sometimes they have reasons where
I'm like, okay, I can't offer you that
thing that you think is better for your
life anyway, whatever. But, it's good to
sit with the hmm, it's possible that
they see this well and I see this
poorly. If you open that lane of
humility, I have found that you're far
more likely to suddenly step outside of
your frame of reference, see something
you were blind to, and now stop making a
mistake that you were making before. I
really don't trust politicians to do
that. You can't trust the average person
on the street to do that. And the kind
of person that is so confident in
themselves that they can push hard
enough to be president. If you want to
be president of the US, you're basically
saying I want to run the world. That's
wild. That's wild. That's so arrogant.
>> Speaking as a CEO, Devin Perkins said,
"The government is just a huge business.
Why can't the best CEO stay in power?"
Uh because they'll kill their own
people. So, what people seem to forget
is that you can leave a company. When
the right despot gets in control, you
literally can't leave the country.
Please read history. Please There's You
just need to read three books. The Gulag
Archipelago, The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich, and Mao: The Untold Story.
Read those three and then report back on
whether you think that there should be
term limits.
In the 20th century alone,
over 200 million people were killed by
their own government. Not like Russia's
invading Ukraine and a bunch people die.
It's like Mao starved 45 million people
to death. That's how a government By the
way, that's not the only way you kill
people. Actually imagine, you with me?
Close your eyes at home if you need to.
But, I actually want you to imagine
this. Trump goes on after winning his
third term,
and he says, "Dear middle schoolers,
your teachers have gotten out of pocket,
and I've really tried to shut down the
teachers unions and I can't. So, I'm
telling you right now, I will pardon
every single one of you if you beat your
teachers to death.
And I want you to do it at a school
assembly and I'm telling you right now I
will pardon you. And then those kids go
and they get their teachers and they
drag them in front of everybody and they
actually beat them to death. That
happened in the [ __ ] 60s and 70s.
That's why you want term limits.
So, everybody thinks they know best. By
the way, Mao united China.
So, you can understand why he would
think, well, I'm the [ __ ]
I'm the guy.
Bro,
I only had to kill 45 million people to
do it. Like what the problem is.
Uh what? That was not a made-up story.
That's what Mao actually did. You had
like 12 and 13-year-olds beat their
teachers to death.