Talk:Donald Trump third term proposal

“No further elections are stolen”

This phrasing presumes that past elections have been stolen. ~2026-30653-54 (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I've edited this to add quotes. To make clear that this language is from Bannon, not wikipedia. TietoTeekkari (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@TietoTeekkari, I see you've reverted my removal of this quote. Let's discuss. I think it's irrelevant to this page because the quote is A) explicitly about the 2026 midterms, not the 2028 presidential race, and B) Does not specifically pertain to Trump serving a third term. The quote should be moved to somewhere in the page about Trump's authoritarianism: Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration Deckocard21 (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it's relevant because it is about the attitudes of Trump's allies towards elections. Even if it is about the 2026 election, it is reflective of the kinds of strategies that are being discussed when it comes to Electing Donald Trump.

Leaving it out would give a tamer overall impression. We shouldn't bury the big picture just because it's not technically about the third term. It is still a quote about using illicit means to keep Trump in power, which is highly relevant.

In summary, it demonstrates hostile attitudes towards organizing democratic and legal elections. This makes it directly relevant to a third term proposal. TietoTeekkari (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. The quote is not about keeping Trump in power past his constitutionally allowed second term, its about abusing power to corrupt the 2026 elections.This is fundamentally different. If Trump tomorrow said that he did not recognize the authority of Congress to regulate his actions at all, that would be a terrible abuse of power, but it would not be at all related to a third term. If we incorporated all elements of Trump disrespecting elections or democracy, this article would grow unreasonably long. We would have to talk about January 6th and 2020 election fraud related ideas. I think this article is for specifically Trump's discussion of a third term, no more, no less. There are no shortage of articles about Trump's general disrespect for democracy: this one should be limited and finite in its scope to narrow third term discourse. Deckocard21 (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand your argument. While I disagree I can compromise.

To reiterate. The idea of taking further control of elections in 2026 is a step towards electing Trump again in 2028. If the government were to give ICE the poeer to oversee elections in 2026, they would still have that power in 2028. Bannon says to "never again" allow elections to be stolen. The 2028 election is obviously covered by "never again" here.

If you'd like, I could try to find more material from sources to tie the quote, and other such statements back to the third term proposal? I think it's already relevant, but it couldn't hurt to tie it to the topic even more. TietoTeekkari (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Restoration of Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar

After the recent removal, I have restored the template and the link to the navbar. The edit summary used to justify the removal consisted of one word, "irrelevant", which is defined as "not connected with or relevant". On the contrary, this article clearly discusses, in eight relevant paragraphs, that Trump would like to serve a third term, and if necessary, suspend or cancel elections during the 2026 midterm elections. According to legal scholar, Kim Lane Scheppele, whose area of expertise is authoritarian regimes in the third wave of autocratization, modern autocrats work towards changing election laws as the final stage of autocratization. Trump's comments discussing the suspension or cancelling of elections fits this model of authoritarianism. Scheppele and other experts on authoritarianism have discussed this specific issue in depth. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources cited in this very article describe Trump's statements as offhand jokes, trolling, or hyperbole. Sticking a permanent, prominent vertical sidebar on this page takes a contentious, disputed interpretation and treats it as the framing of the whole article (saying that this article is "Part of a series on Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar") which runs straight into WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.

More basically, this fails WP:NAVBOX. Sidebars aren't broad thematic categories where we park anything loosely related. The guideline is clear: the subject of the template needs to be mentioned in the article, and the articles should refer to each other. Right now, this article doesn't discuss or frame itself around Trump-era authoritarianism, and the main authoritarianism article doesn't even cover the third-term talk. Bookaddictt (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggesting you are going to subvert democratic rule in order to stay in power is definitionally authoritarian. TietoTeekkari (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources cited in this very article describe Trump's statements as offhand jokes, trolling, or hyperbole. This idea was debunked more than a year ago, in March 2025. Furthermore, academic sources have explored the underlying basis of it, including Hofstra 2024 and Landa 2025. Trump initially said it was a joke in 2019 and then reversed himself in 2025, saying "I'm not joking...There are methods which you could do it". The reality is that this is Trump's deliberate rhetorical strategy that normalizes previously forbidden discourse, uses "jokes" as plausible deniability, and eventually attempts to move the Overton window. Walker 2024 has addressed aspects of this phenomenon which plays a strong role in racist and sexist rhetoric in the US. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Right now, this article doesn't discuss or frame itself around Trump-era authoritarianism. It most certainly does, in eight paragraphs. I've noticed that some readers like yourself are unable to read material in a way that refers to other topics (in this case authoritarianism) without overt, explicit language. Given the preponderance of sources, this can easily be done for our readers. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Whether Trump's rhetoric is interpreted by commentators as autocratization, serious intent, or calculated provocation is content that belongs in the article text with proper attribution per WP:WEIGHT. But slapping a prominent "Part of a series on Authoritarianism" sidebar onto the page takes an analytical conclusion not explicitly established in the text and declares it in Wikipedia's voice. That breaches WP:NPOV. And having found that several of the articles you sent don't mention the article's subject, if an article requires several layers of academic synthesis regarding rhetorical strategies, plausible deniability, and the Overton window just to infer the connection to authoritarianism, then it at least fails the basic test for a WP:SIDEBAR. Arguing that readers need to interpret themes "without overt, explicit language" is an explicit admission of WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia editors do not read between the lines to deduce what an article is "really" about and then affix a vertical series banner to cement that interpretation. Bookaddictt (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

You are choosing to ignore all of the arguments given here. It is not fringe to connect the third term proposal to authoritarianism. It's as obvious as connecting election control in Russia to authoritarianism. Both of which are supported by multiple citations, even though they are not remotely controversial connections to make. You are not making a good faith argument when you list the argument of the opposing view and then state that it is false because it is detailed. That does not follow. Sidebar is clearly justified in my opinion. TietoTeekkari (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)