The answer is theoretically yes, but in practice, the creator of the trust may want to consider the problems and complications that could arise from having more than one.  The trust manual itself specifies no limit on this:


The creator may, through the protector, as set forth in the trust instrument, remove a trustee.  The cause for removing a trustee is not required to be disclosed.  The power to remove a trustee may cause various problems if not done properly.  The safest way to avoid these problems is for the creator to appoint a protector, who can replace a non-related trustee with another non-related trustee.

If the creator were to appoint more than one protector, then what would be the reason and the benefit in this?  Suppose the two (or more) protectors disagree with each other?  Suppose one follows the creator’s wishes and the other doesn’t?  And when the time comes for a protector to take action, which one would perform this action?  Would both protectors be needed to perform it?  These are just a few of the questions that arise around this issue. 

If you are intending to have a second protector waiting on standby in case the first one resigns, disappears, or otherwise becomes unavailable, then the best way to do this would be to have one current protector and a successor protector.  The one designated as “current” is the one that has the power to remove trustees.  While the current protector is serving faithfully, the successor would have no power.  Only when the current protector retires or becomes unavailable would the successor have his or her role changed from successor to current.