7. April 2026

25th Amendment: Here's How an Invocation Against Trump Would Work

WASHINGTON-- President Donald Trump’s profanity-laced Easter Sunday social media post threatening to target civilian infrastructure in Iran drew sharp condemnation from Democrats, with some lawmakers urging consideration of the Constitution’s 25th Amendment as a means of removing him from office.

In a message posted to Truth Social, Trump escalated his rhetoric over tensions with Iran, writing: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F-----’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

The post appeared to reference the strategic Strait of Hormuz and suggested potential U.S. strikes on Iranian infrastructure, prompting immediate backlash from Democratic officials who characterized the language as dangerous and destabilizing.

“If I were in Trump’s Cabinet, I would spend Easter calling constitutional lawyers about the 25th Amendment,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., wrote on X. “This is completely, utterly unhinged. He’s already killed thousands. He’s going to kill thousands more.”

Other Democrats echoed the concern. U.S. Reps. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona and Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico were among those calling for the amendment’s use, arguing that the president’s rhetoric raised questions about his fitness to serve.

The calls fit into a broader pattern of partisan appeals to the 25th Amendment, which have surfaced repeatedly in recent years. Democrats previously raised the possibility during Trump’s first term, including in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. More recently, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., suggested invoking the amendment in January over Trump’s comments about acquiring Greenland.

Republicans, for their part, floated similar arguments during former President Joe Biden’s tenure. Some GOP lawmakers pointed to a 2024 report by special counsel Robert Hur that described Biden as having “a poor memory,” as well as his widely criticized debate performance that year, which preceded his decision to end his reelection campaign.

Despite the latest round of calls, constitutional scholars and political observers say the likelihood of the 25th Amendment being invoked remains remote, given the high legal threshold and the political realities within the current administration.

The White House dismissed the criticism, emphasizing Trump’s policy agenda and electoral support.

“President Trump is working tirelessly on behalf of the American people to fulfill his commonsense America First agenda that nearly 80 million people elected him for,” spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement.

Ratified in 1967, the 25th Amendment was designed to clarify presidential succession and address scenarios involving presidential incapacity. Its first three sections deal with filling vacancies in the presidency and vice presidency, as well as voluntary transfers of power when a president declares an inability to perform the duties of the office.

Section 4 — the provision cited by Trump’s critics — outlines a process for involuntary transfer of power. It allows the vice president, together with a majority of the Cabinet or another body designated by Congress, to declare that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” at which point the vice president assumes the role of acting president.

A president can contest that determination by notifying congressional leaders that no such inability exists. If the vice president and Cabinet reaffirm their finding within four days, Congress must decide the issue, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to keep the vice president in charge. Because of those requirements, legal analysts often describe Section 4 as an extraordinary and rarely viable mechanism.

“The 25th Amendment has a limited focus on whether a president is physically or mentally incapable of doing his job,” said Michael J. Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor. “It is not a remedy for misconduct that the president might have committed.”

In practice, invocation of the amendment would depend heavily on support from the president’s own administration — support that Trump appears to retain. Vice President JD Vance and Cabinet officials have consistently backed the president, and Republicans in Congress have largely supported his policies, making a coordinated effort to remove him highly unlikely.

Trump himself has referenced the amendment in recent weeks. During a March 26 Cabinet meeting, he joked about the possibility while discussing Iran policy. “I can’t say what we’re going to do, because if I did, I wouldn’t be sitting here for long,” Trump said. “They’d probably — what is it called — the 25th Amendment, huh?”

The amendment’s origins trace back to longstanding concerns about presidential disability, brought into sharper focus after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Lawmakers sought to create a clear constitutional framework for handling situations in which a president could not perform the duties of the office.

Legal scholars note that the amendment’s language was intentionally broad. Its principal author, Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., embraced a definition of presidential inability that could include both physical and mental conditions. That approach reflected proposals from figures including Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, D-N.Y., and Rep. Richard Poff, R-Va., who argued the provision should apply not only in cases of physical incapacitation but also when a president is unable or unwilling to make rational decisions.

At the same time, experts emphasize that the amendment was not intended as a tool for resolving political disputes or responding to controversial statements.

“The record makes clear that Section 4 was not designed as a mechanism to remove a president simply for making unpopular or inflammatory remarks,” said Joel K. Goldstein, professor of law emeritus at Saint Louis University.

As debate over Trump’s comments continues, the episode underscores both the enduring political tensions surrounding presidential conduct and the significant constitutional hurdles involved in any attempt to remove a sitting president under the 25th Amendment.