25th Amendment, How It Could Remove Donald Trump From Office

Donald Trump’s unrelenting desire to annex Greenland has sent a wave of congressional Democrats calling for Donald Trump’s removal from office through the 25th Amendment. The president’s escalating threats against European allies and his letter linking military action to a Nobel Prize snub have raised serious concerns from NATO allies about their security. Some lawmakers argue that Trump’s behavior demonstrates he is unfit to serve. This constitutional provision has never successfully removed a sitting president, but Section 4 provides clear direction on how it could happen.

Senator Ed Markey made headlines in January 2026 when he called for the amendment’s invocation. The Massachusetts Democrat posted simply “Invoke the 25th Amendment” after Trump sent an unusual message to Norway’s Prime Minister. In that text, Trump stated he no longer felt obligated to “think purely of Peace” because Norway denied him the Nobel Peace Prize. Representative Yassamin Ansari echoed Markey’s sentiment, declaring “The 25th Amendment exists for a reason—we need to invoke it immediately.”

Origins After Kennedy Assassination Sparked Constitutional Crisis

The 25th Amendment was proposed by federal lawmakers following the assassination of  President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Kennedy’s sudden death exposed dangerous gaps in America’s succession plans, as Vice President Lyndon Johnson was in the same Dallas motorcade when Kennedy was shot. The confusion that afternoon revealed how vulnerable the nation was to leadership chaos during the Cold War.

Before the amendment, no clear procedure existed for handling presidential disability or for a president unfit to run. 8 presidents and 7 vice presidents had died in office by 1963, and each time a vice president died, that office remained vacant until the next election. President Dwight Eisenhower’s health crises in the 1950s highlighted the need for formal disability procedures. Senator Estes Kefauver began working on the amendment during the Eisenhower era. He renewed those efforts in 1963 but died of a heart attack on the Senate floor that August before seeing his work completed.

Section 4 Details Involuntary Removal Process With Congressional Oversight

Section 4 addresses the concerns of removing a president who cannot or will not acknowledge their inability to run. The vice president must initiate the process with the support of a majority of the Cabinet, which consists of 15 Cabinet secretaries. They include the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, and 12 other department heads. 8 Cabinet members must agree with the vice president that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

The vice president and Cabinet must transmit a written declaration to 2 congressional leaders. Those leaders are the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate. Once Congress receives this declaration, the vice president immediately assumes the powers of the presidency as Acting President. The president remains in office but temporarily loses all authority. This structure differs from impeachment, which permanently removes a president from office.

Presidential Challenge Triggers 21-Day Congressional Decision Timeline

It is anticipated that the president will fight his removal; however, the amendment anticipates this challenge. The president can send a written declaration to Congress stating “no inability exists,” which triggers a 4-day window during which the vice president and Cabinet must respond. If they do not validate the president’s inability within those 4 days, the president will resume his full duties. However, if they send another written declaration, Congress must decide the issue.

Congress has 21 days to vote after receiving the second declaration. The chambers must then assemble within 48 hours, if not already in session, and both the House and the Senate must vote separately on the question. Removing a president requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers, and if either chamber fails to reach that supermajority, the president immediately resumes all powers and duties. 

Amendment Used Six Times, But Never To Remove a Sitting President

The 25th Amendment has been invoked 6 times since ratification, but Section 4 has never removed a president. The first use came in 1973 when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned amid bribery and tax fraud charges. Agnew pleaded no contest to failing to report $29,500 in income. President Nixon nominated House Minority Leader Gerald Ford as vice president under Section 2 of the 25th Amendment. Congress confirmed Ford in December 1973, marking the amendment’s first real-world application.

The amendment gained prominence again in August 1974. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment over Watergate. Ford became president and nominated Nelson Rockefeller as vice president. Congress confirmed Rockefeller on December 19, 1974. For the first time in American history, both the president and vice president held office without being elected. Section 3 of the amendment has been invoked three times for voluntary power transfers during medical procedures. President Reagan used it in 1985 during colon surgery. President George W. Bush invoked it twice for colonoscopies in 2002 and 2007.

Trump Cabinet Members Show No Support For Removal Despite Democratic Pressure

President Trump’s current Cabinet consists of 15 department heads confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Vice President JD Vance would need to convince eight of these secretaries to declare Trump unable to serve. The Cabinet includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Attorney General Pam Bondi. Other key members include Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Neither Vance nor any Cabinet member has expressed support for removing Trump. Democratic calls for the 25th Amendment face the same political reality that doomed similar efforts after January 6, 2021. Following the Capitol attack, some Cabinet members discussed invoking Section 4. Vice President Mike Pence refused. He sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating such action would not serve the nation’s interest. Pence argued the amendment was designed for incapacity or disability, not punishment.

Greenland Crisis Escalated With Tariff Threats Against NATO Allies

Trump’s Greenland campaign triggered unprecedented tensions with European partners. The president announced a 10 percent tariff on goods from eight NATO allies starting February 1, 2026. Those countries included Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. Trump threatened to escalate the tariff to 25 percent by June 1 unless Denmark agreed to sell Greenland to the United States. He stated those countries were “playing a very dangerous game” by supporting Denmark.

The tariff announcement followed European nations sending small military contingents to Greenland. Those troops conducted reconnaissance missions to assess Arctic security needs. Trump claimed European forces created dangerous risks and posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, that “the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet” were at stake. European leaders condemned his threats, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer calling the imposition of tariffs on allies “completely wrong.” French President Emmanuel Macron declared the tariffs “unacceptable.”

Norway Text Message Linked Greenland Demands To Nobel Prize Disappointment

Trump sent a shocking message to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, directly linking his Greenland ambitions to his loss of the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump wrote: “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace.” He continued that he could now “think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”

The message was actually a response to Støre and Finnish President Alexander Stubb. The 2 European leaders had reached out seeking to de-escalate tensions. Støre explained that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by an independent committee, not the Norwegian government.

“Unable To Discharge Powers” Remains Deliberately Vague Constitutional Standard

The amendment’s framers intentionally left “unable” undefined to cover various scenarios. Legislative history shows the term can encompass physical, mental, emotional, or logistical incapacity. Representative Richard Poff, a key House architect of the amendment, explained Section 4 in the 1960s. He said it included situations when a president “by reason of mental debility, is unable or unwilling to make any rational decision.” Senator Birch Bayh described it as addressing “an impairment of the President’s faculties.”

However, the framers made clear the amendment was not meant for policy disagreements. It should not be used simply because a president made unpopular decisions. Yale Law School noted that traits such as “inept,” “lazy,” or “inattentive” likely do not, by themselves, qualify as grounds for removal. The standard requires a genuine inability to perform presidential duties. Some experts argue that Section 4 might be justified if a president is on the verge of catastrophic action, such as an impulsive nuclear strike.

Impeachment Differs From 25th Amendment In Permanence And Consequences

Impeachment and the 25th Amendment offer two distinct paths for removing a president. Impeachment is a legislative process starting in the House of Representatives. The House draws up articles of impeachment. If approved by a majority vote, the articles go to the Senate for trial. The Senate must vote by a two-thirds majority to convict and remove the president. Impeachment results in permanent removal and can bar the individual from ever holding federal office again. Convicted presidents lose their pension and other benefits under the Former Presidents’ Act.

The 25th Amendment operates differently. It originates in the executive branch through the vice president and Cabinet. Removal under Section 4 is temporary unless Congress votes to make it permanent. More importantly, the 25th Amendment carries no prohibition on future office-holding. A president removed under Section 4 could, in theory, run for office again. The amendment also does not eliminate pension benefits or Secret Service protection. It is designed for incapacity rather than misconduct. 

Debate Continues Over Whether Acting Cabinet Members Count As “Principal Officers”

A critical unresolved question involves acting Cabinet secretaries. The amendment refers to “principal officers of the executive departments.” Scholars agree that this means the 15 Cabinet secretaries enumerated in federal law. But what happens if some positions are filled with temporary acting secretaries? Can those acting officials vote to invoke Section 4? This question became urgent after January 6, 2021, when Trump had three acting Cabinet members.

The standard interpretation suggests that acting members probably count as principal officers. However, some legal scholars argue that acting members should not count. Their reasoning focuses on the amendment’s function. A president facing removal could fire Cabinet members and install loyalist acting secretaries. Those loyalists could then block a Section 4 declaration. This would allow an “out-of-control President to easily short-circuit the very process designed to rein him in.” The debate remains unresolved because Section 4 has never been invoked.

Trump Eventually Backed Down After NATO Meeting Reached Framework Agreement

Trump’s Greenland campaign reached a turning point on January 21, 2026. The president met with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Trump announced they had reached a “framework of a future deal” regarding Greenland and the Arctic region. He declared the deal “gets everything we wanted” and would be “forever” in effect. Trump simultaneously canceled the tariffs he had threatened against European allies.

In his Davos speech, Trump ruled out the use of military force, contrary to his previous statements threatening to invade Greenland. “I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” he stated. He still demanded “immediate negotiations” over Greenland. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen expressed support for Trump’s decision to rule out force but criticized other aspects of his speech. European leaders welcomed the tariff suspension but remained cautious. German Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil attributed Trump’s reversal to international pressure and declining investor confidence.

Read More: Iranian State Television Issues Threat Against Trump, Warns That Next Shot Would Be Fatal

Political Reality Makes 25th Amendment Removal Nearly Impossible Currently

The prospects for Trump’s removal under the 25th Amendment remain virtually nonexistent. Republicans control both the House and Senate in 2026. Even if Vance and eight Cabinet members declared Trump unable to serve, Congress would have the final say. The two-thirds vote requirement in both chambers creates an insurmountable obstacle. Legal scholars note that Section 4 is deliberately designed to be politically difficult. It requires executive-branch initiation plus supermajoritarian congressional backup.

The structure reflects the framers’ intent to prevent partisan abuse. They wanted to protect presidents from unjustified attacks while preserving the tool for genuine emergencies. Constitutional experts emphasize that invoking Section 4 for the first time, especially for a president who is not physically ill and retains public support, could trigger a constitutional crisis. The amendment’s high political hurdles ensure it remains reserved for truly extraordinary circumstances. Trump’s Greenland threats, while controversial, do not appear to meet that standard given current political alignments.

Conclusion

The 25th Amendment represents one of America’s most important constitutional safeguards, yet it remains one of the least understood. Section 4 provides a clear mechanism for removing a president unable to discharge their duties. The process intentionally favors the president through multiple layers of checks and escalating vote thresholds. While Democratic lawmakers have called for its use against Trump, the political and constitutional requirements make such removal exceptionally unlikely. Vice President Vance and eight Cabinet secretaries would need to agree that Trump cannot serve. Then, two-thirds of each chamber of Congress would need to confirm that assessment. No current evidence suggests either condition will materialize. The 25th Amendment endures as a critical constitutional tool, but one designed for genuine presidential incapacity rather than policy disagreements or controversial rhetoric. Exercise your democratic rights; your constitutional protections might depend on understanding them.

Read More: Donald Trump’s Father Fred Had Alzheimer’s: What That Means for Genetic Risk