Yes, but some constitutional literalists tend to be quite … literal.

“The authors of the 22nd amendment clearly knew the difference between holding office and being elected to office, because the text of the amendment distinguishes between the two, yet still chose to explicitly only bar from election.”

Since the 22nd amendment only explicitly bars you from being elected, it could be argued that you still meet the eligibility requirements laid out in Article II; that is, you’re only explicitly barred from being elected, not from holding office.

https://quickapedia.com/answer/what-are-the-constitutional-requirements-for-becoming-a-u-s-vice-president/

We’ve definitely seen some very concerning Supreme Court rulings recently, so it’s unfortunately not as clear-cut as we would hope.

Okay, loophole time: what if he runs as VP in 2028, and after inauguration, the newly elected president resigns? He wouldn’t technically have been elected, and the amendment doesn’t mention being barred from actually serving more than twice.