Amendment XXII is one of the worst-drafted in the Constitution - and this often-discussed FR scenario is one of the reasons why.
This was discussed to death in 1999-20 about Clinton, in 2007-8 about W, and in 2015-6 about Obama.
And, yes, XXII by its plain language DOES NOT change the meaning of “eligible to the office”, the criteria remain older than 35; natural born citizen unless born before 1789; and resident in a State for 14 years prior to inauguration.
Even the meaning of “shall be elected” is unclear, since Presidential elections in the conventional way the term is used do not appear in the Constitution and are certainly not required by it.
So, who is limited by XXII and what is the enforcement mechanism? Are States limited in whom they may appoint as Electors? Once appointed, are Electors limited as to whom they may vote for? If Electoral Votes are received by the President of the Senate naming a person who “shall [not] be elected”, do they not count them? If they don’t count them, is the number for a majority reduced? And if the Congress assembled in Joint Session counts the votes anyway, and an official authorized to administer oaths, say a Justice of the Peace in Alaska swears the individual with more than half the Electoral Votes in, is he President, or is he not?
The whole thing is stupid. Should a situation arise where an individual who has served two terms as President is perceived as critical to the well being of the whole nation arrives at January 20 20XX with a majority of properly-formed Electoral votes, a way will be found for him to serve again.
But with regard to DJT? Let’s get him through July 4, 2025 before making long range plans.
DJT has no plans for another run at the White House. His long term plans most likely gravitate to the Golf Course, his children, and his grandchildren.
But I still contend it would be good to keep beating the drums to make the Democrats & RINOs eat themselves in a panic.