Adelson Offers Trump $250 Million to Consider Unconstitutional 2028 Third-Term Run

Israeli-American billionaire and GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson has pledged up to $250 million if President Donald Trump decides to pursue an unprecedented third term in 2028, a move that would directly collide with the U.S. Constitution’s two-term limit for presidents. [Source] The pledge, made during a Hanukkah reception at the White House, has intensified debate over money in politics, constitutional norms, and the growing influence of ultra-wealthy donors on American democracy. [Source]

The $250 Million Third-Term Pledge

During a Hanukkah event at the White House, Trump invited Miriam Adelson on stage and praised her past support, saying she had given his political efforts a total of $250 million “indirectly and directly.” [Source] In front of the crowd, Adelson leaned in to speak with Trump, after which he told the audience that she had just offered him “another $250 million” if he chose to run again, prompting cheers and chants of “four more years.” [Source]

Adelson herself confirmed the pledge on the spot, responding “I will give” after Trump repeated the offer to the room. [Source] Video clips of the exchange quickly spread online, with many commentators noting how casually a quarter of a billion dollars was discussed as a potential price tag for a single presidential run that would almost certainly trigger a constitutional crisis. [Source]

What the Constitution Actually Says

The central legal obstacle is the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four electoral victories, which clearly states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” [Source] Under the plain text of the amendment, Trump has already reached the maximum number of times a person can be elected president, making a 2028 third-term bid effectively unconstitutional without formal changes to the law. [Source]

Constitutional scholars overwhelmingly agree that a third term would require a constitutional amendment, which is an intentionally difficult process requiring two-thirds approval in both the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of U.S. states. [Source] That high bar, combined with the country’s current political polarization, makes any realistic path to a third Trump term vanishingly small, regardless of how much donor money is on the table. [Source]

Dershowitz and the “Ambiguity” Argument

Fueling the controversy is retired Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who met with Trump in the Oval Office to discuss a draft of his upcoming book examining whether a president can constitutionally serve a third term. [Source] Dershowitz has been quoted as telling Trump that the Constitution is “not clear” on whether a president can become a third-term president, framing the issue as an unresolved legal question rather than a settled prohibition. [Source]

Dershowitz also spoke with Miriam Adelson, who cited his views during the Hanukkah event and said she agreed with his legal take on “four more years.” [Source] Despite his comments about ambiguity, Dershowitz has also indicated he does not expect Trump to actually pursue a third term, suggesting his interest is more theoretical and academic than a practical strategy for 2028. [Source]

Major Donor Power and Preserve America

Miriam Adelson is not a new figure in Trump-world; she has long been one of his most important financial backers. In the 2024 election cycle, she donated around $100 million to the pro-Trump super PAC Preserve America, making her one of the most significant individual donors in American politics. [Source] That single donor contribution eclipsed the political spending of many entire industries and ensured Trump had a massive outside-spending machine working on his behalf. [Source]

Her history of massive donations—stretching back to at least 2016 alongside her late husband, Sheldon Adelson—has helped cement her role as perhaps Trump’s most powerful financial ally. [Source] The new $250 million third-term pledge builds on that track record and showcases how a single billionaire can dramatically shape the strategic possibilities and public narratives around a politician’s future, even when those possibilities collide with constitutional guardrails. [Source]

Trump’s Mixed Messages on a Third Term

Trump himself has sent conflicting signals about whether he would ever attempt a third run. At times, he has acknowledged that the Constitution is “pretty clear” that he is not allowed to run for a third term, suggesting he understands the legal barrier. [Source] In other interviews, however, he has mused that he is “not joking” about the idea and that “a lot of people want” him to pursue more time in office, which his critics interpret as an intentional testing of democratic norms. [Source]

The public nature of Adelson’s offer, combined with Trump’s flair for floating norm-breaking possibilities, makes the scenario more than just a hypothetical law-school debate. [Source] Even if a third-term run never materializes, the rhetoric itself normalizes the idea that constitutional limits are flexible if enough money, political will, or legal creativity can be marshaled against them. [Source]

Why This Matters for U.S. Democracy

The Adelson–Trump–Dershowitz triangle around a possible third term crystallizes three powerful forces in modern U.S. politics: billionaire donor influence, executive power ambitions, and increasingly aggressive interpretations of constitutional text. [Source] When a single donor can casually pledge $250 million toward something that would require overturning or radically reinterpreting a constitutional amendment, it raises serious questions about the balance between wealth and the rule of law. [Source]

At the same time, the episode serves as a reminder that the Constitution’s durability depends not only on the text itself, but on the willingness of political actors—and the public—to treat its limits as non-negotiable, even when they have the money and motivation to push against them. [Source] Whether Trump ever seriously attempts a third-term run or not, the mere talk of it underscores how fragile democratic norms can become under the pressure of personality, power, and money.