ANALYSIS: The 25th Amendment is being invoked—why Vance and the cabinet haven’t taken the plunge

The original intent of the drafters

To understand why the 25th Amendment has never been used for involuntary removal from office, we must look back at the intentions of its architects. Senator Birch Bayh, the amendment’s principal author, had very specific scenarios in mind: a president suffering a heart attack, a stroke, severe mental incapacity due to illness, or an attack that would leave him unconscious. Robert F. Kennedy, during congressional hearings, defined presidential incapacity as encompassing “the physical or mental inability to make or communicate a decision regarding one’s ability to exercise the powers and duties of the office.”

Legal Expertise vs. Political Appeals

Constitutional law scholar Michael J. Gerhardt was unequivocal in his analysis: “The 25th Amendment has limited scope regarding whether a president is physically or mentally unable to perform his duties. It is not a remedy for any mistakes the president may have made.” ” Joel K. Goldstein, another leading expert, was even more direct: the legislative record clearly shows that Section 4 was not intended to remove a president simply because he makes unpopular decisions.

Constitutional scholar Mark Graber expanded on this analysis, noting that a president whose beliefs are “so fanciful that he can no longer perform his duties” could theoretically be targeted—but that he did not believe this description applied to Trump. For Graber, Trump’s actions constitute “political disqualifications” for the presidency, not a medical incapacity within the meaning of the amendment. The line between presidential eccentricity and actual incapacity is blurred, subjective, and contested—which in itself serves as a formidable legal bulwark against any political invocation of the amendment.

Herein lies the Gordian knot: the U.S. Constitution is designed for reasonable men in extreme situations, not for extreme situations caused by an unreasonable man. Trump has exploited this institutional blind spot with an efficiency that his opponents have never been able to counter.

An Easter message that shocked the world

On Sunday, April 6, 2026, Easter Sunday, Donald Trump posted a message on Truth Social that immediately went viral around the world: “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! ” The next morning, in an even more alarming statement, Trump claimed that “an entire civilization will die tonight” if Iran did not give in. These threats explicitly targeted Iranian civilian infrastructure—power plants, bridges—which many legal experts immediately characterized as potential war crimes.

A diverse coalition of right and left

The reaction was immediate and of rare magnitude. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy wrote on X: “If I were in Trump’s cabinet, I’d spend Easter calling constitutional scholars about the 25th Amendment. This is completely, utterly out of control.” ” The Iranian Embassy in South Africa officially called on Washington to “seriously consider the 25th Amendment, Section 4.” More than 50 Democratic representatives—including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Ro Khanna—joined this chorus.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former Trump ally, called the situation “evil and madness” and called for the amendment to be invoked. Candace Owens did the same. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones asked on his show, “How do we go about invoking the 25th Amendment?” Former CIA Director John Brennan stated that Trump was no longer capable of effectively leading the nation. Anthony Scaramucci, the short-lived White House communications director, called for impeachment, claiming that Trump was threatening to use nuclear weapons.

When Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez call for the same thing on the same day, it’s not political theater—it’s a systemic warning sign. But in a liberal democracy, the warning sign alone isn’t enough. Someone must have the key to set it off. And as of April 2026, no one in Trump’s inner circle had any intention of using that key.

From Trump’s Critic to His Most Loyal Servant

The key to the 25th Amendment is JD Vance. Under the constitutional mechanics of Section 4, the vice president holds an absolutely pivotal position: without him, no declaration of incapacity is possible. He is the one who must co-sign the letter, the one who becomes acting president, and the one who shoulders the most staggering political rupture in modern American history. Yet Vance was not an early Trump supporter. Before joining the MAGA movement, he had been one of Trump’s most vocal critics, even warning privately that the New York billionaire could become “the American Hitler.”

The Vice President’s Unique Constitutional Position

His transformation into a loyal lieutenant remains one of the most spectacular political metamorphoses in recent American politics. In 2026, the vice president was described by White House press secretary Anna Kelly as “an incredibly reliable and competent member of President Trump’s national security team,” adding that “his loyalty to the president and his unwavering commitment to the America First agenda remain steadfast.” When the Iran crisis erupted, Vance was in Hungary, where he spoke with Trump by phone to allow the president to address a political rally.

Vance’s position presents a notable constitutional quirk: unlike cabinet secretaries, who can be fired by the president at any time, the vice president is an independently elected official. Trump cannot fire Vance. This is precisely what would make his action under the 25th Amendment so decisive—and so rare. There is not the slightest indication, however, that Vance has ever considered invoking it.

Vance is perhaps the most tragic figure in this story. He possesses the intelligence to understand what is happening, the legal stature to act, and the constitutional standing to do so. But he has chosen to bet on loyalty rather than on history. That gamble—one made by vice presidents before him, including Mike Pence in 2021—has come back to haunt them for a long time.

The Presidential Election in Sight

To understand Vance’s decisions, one must look ahead to 2028. According to The Guardian, the vice president is already “preparing for a presidential run in 2028.” His standing in polls on the Republican succession places him in the lead, ahead of Secretary of State Marco Rubio—though his lead is narrowing. Invoking the 25th Amendment against Trump would have unpredictable consequences for his MAGA base. It could turn the man some consider the natural heir to Trumpism into a traitor—the Benedict Arnold of populist America.

Disastrous Polls and Pressure from Rubio

But this strategy has its limits. The Guardian noted in April 2026 that Vance’s popularity polls are plummeting, to the point that he has become “the least popular vice president in modern history.” He is paying the price for Trump’s excesses without reaping the political rewards. Guardian journalist Simon Tisdall posed the question with cold bluntness: Will Vance continue to “passively serve as Trump’s scapegoat” or will he distance himself? The answer in 2026 was unambiguous: Vance waited.

According to Politico, a book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan reveals that Trump even rebuffed Vance during a meeting on the strikes in Iran—Operation Midnight Hammer—retorting, “I know what I’m doing,” when the VP suggested toning down certain aspects of the president’s speech. Vance’s aides had speculated that he was “nervous” that the operation might turn into a protracted engagement. An Iraq War veteran, Vance has always presented himself as hostile to foreign military adventures. This internal contradiction was not enough to prompt him to act publicly.

The U.S. vice president is, by the Constitution, a figure in waiting—he waits for the president to die, resign, or be impeached. Vance has internalized this logic to the point of absurdity. By remaining silent, he preserves his chances for 2028 while watching the institutions burn—institutions that only he would be able to save. History will judge this passivity, just as it judged that of Mike Pence after January 6, 2021.

Cabinet meetings turned into ceremonies of allegiance

Section 4 requires not only the vice president’s signature but also that of a majority of cabinet members. Yet Trump’s cabinet in his second term is remarkably ideologically homogeneous. According to PolitiFact, “during cabinet meetings, members regularly praise the president.” These are not deliberative meetings—they are ceremonies of loyalty. After the first wave of appointments, Trump gradually sidelined any dissenting voices, replacing independent-minded figures with individuals whose primary qualification was their personal loyalty.

The Mechanism for Purging Dissenting Voices

In March 2026, Joe Kent, a senior counterterrorism official, resigned in protest against the war in Iran—becoming the highest-ranking official to leave the administration for that reason. Trump called him a “nice guy” but said he was relieved of his departure. Kent’s resignation perfectly illustrates the dynamics of Trump’s cabinet: those who have doubts leave, and those who remain keep quiet.

Vice President Vance himself had stated in March 2026 that he considered Kent’s resignation “justified” due to his “lack of support for Trump’s agenda regarding Iran.” This statement illustrates the logic of conformity that governs the second term: any deviation from the presidential line is presented as a personal failing, not as a legitimate disagreement. Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse summed up the situation with brutal clarity: impeachment is “not realistic at this point, given his eccentric cabinet of sycophants.”

A cabinet of sycophants is not just a political problem—it is a systemic failure. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned an executive branch in which the cabinet would serve as the last bulwark against the leader’s madness. Trump has methodically dismantled that bulwark by selecting individuals based solely on the criterion of personal loyalty.

The Legislative Obstacle Course

Even assuming that Vance and a majority of the cabinet decided to act—a far-fetched scenario—the remaining constitutional obstacles are considerable. After the initial declaration, Trump would have immediately challenged the decision, triggering a process in Congress. However, Republicans control both chambers. To keep Trump out of office, a two-thirds vote would be required in both chambers—that is, 290 out of 435 representatives in the House, and 67 out of 100 senators in the Senate. The Democrats never reached this threshold during the two impeachment proceedings against Trump in 2020 and 2021. The parliamentary landscape has not fundamentally changed.

Odds on prediction markets

The AInvest website calculated the probability of invoking the 25th Amendment on the Kalshi prediction platform at 35.1% at the height of the Iranian crisis—a level that was “a record since the start of the second term.” But a 35% probability on a prediction platform reflects market jitters more than any tangible political reality. For institutional investors, according to AInvest, the discussion surrounding the 25th Amendment is “classic political noise masking structural reality.”

As the website Flash Today noted in its legal analysis, even if Trump were declared incapacitated, he “would likely have enough support in Congress to be reinstated.” The structure of Section 4 specifically provides for this scenario—and Trump knows it. The procedure is not only difficult to trigger; it is reversible if the president enjoys a loyal parliamentary majority, which has always been the case since the start of his second term.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution designed a system that is deliberately difficult to set in motion, to prevent impeachment from becoming a routine weapon of political opposition. In doing so, they may have underestimated that a president skilled enough to exploit the system’s loopholes could render it ineffective. The safeguards exist—but they are only activated by those determined to use them.

A Constitutional Alternative Ignored Since 1967

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment contains an often-overlooked provision: it does not necessarily require the Cabinet to declare the president incapacitated. It also authorizes “any other body that Congress may establish by law.” Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin, a leading figure on the constitutionalist left, seized on this opening in April 2026, proposing the creation of a standing commission to assess presidential capacity.

A 17-member commission blocked by the Republican majority

His proposal called for a 17-member commission: four former senior officials chosen on a bipartisan basis—who could include former presidents, vice presidents, and senior cabinet members—four physicians, four psychiatrists, and a chairperson elected by their peers. No active members of the administration, no elected officials. Raskin stated: “We have 535 members of Congress but only one president, which makes this body crucial to ensuring the continuity of government.”

Fifty Democratic representatives co-sponsored the resolution. But in the Republican-controlled House, under Speaker Mike Johnson, the proposal died without reaching a vote. The initiative nevertheless illustrates that the U.S. Constitution had anticipated the political impossibility of a loyal cabinet by providing for this alternative—and that this option, available for 57 years, has never been invoked by any Congress.

Raskin’s proposal was constitutionally sound and politically courageous. It also illustrates the structural powerlessness of the opposition: being right is not enough when you do not control the vote. The democratic West should reflect on this lesson—mechanisms for checking power are only effective if parliamentary majorities decide to activate them.

January 2021 as a Distorting Mirror of April 2026

Recent history offers a troubling mirror. In January 2021, following January 6 and the storming of the Capitol, Democrats had already called on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment. Pence refused, writing in a letter to Nancy Pelosi: “I do not believe that such a course of action is in the best interest of our nation or the Constitution.” ” CNN revealed in 2026 that some cabinet members had in fact deliberated far more seriously than was believed at the time—but no one had acted. The pattern repeated itself exactly in 2026, with Vance in the role of Pence.

The Different Stakes of a Second Term

There is, however, a crucial difference between the two situations. In 2021, Trump was nearing the end of his term—the remaining 13 days limited the political value of a lengthy process. In 2026, with several years still ahead of him, the institutional stakes are incomparably higher. The Guardian noted in April 2026 that Trump, who had himself supported the rioters calling for Pence to be hanged for treason, had no loyalty to offer Vance in return.

CNN also pointed out that some cabinet members in 2021 had deliberated on the 25th Amendment “far more seriously than the public realized”—and that their deliberations only came to light much later. This information suggests that public silence does not necessarily mean the absence of private doubts. But in a democracy, it is public actions that matter—and no U.S. vice president has ever invoked Section 4 in the entire history of the United States.

Twice the same story. Twice the same outcome. This is no coincidence—it demonstrates that the American system of checks and balances has a glaring blind spot when it comes to the vice president. Neither Pence nor Vance had the courage the situation demanded. I do not absolve them of this constitutional cowardice, even though I understand the pressure they were under.

Schumer, Jeffries, and the Flawed Strategy

While the failure of Vance and the administration is the main cause of the inaction, the fragmented strategy of the Democratic opposition has also contributed to the political turmoil. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, has deliberately avoided calling for the invocation of the 25th Amendment or impeachment, preferring instead to push for a resolution on war powers. Hakeem Jeffries, in the House, encouraged discussions on the subject without personally committing to it. More than 60 Democrats have called for impeachment, but this process is “dead on arrival,” according to Fox News, in the absence of Republican support.

The Ruthless Arithmetic of the Republican-Controlled Congress

Internal divisions have come to light. Representative Madeleine Dean deemed impeachment “not the best use of our time.” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse advocated “winning the old-fashioned way”—by securing majorities in the midterms. Others, such as Andy Kim, stated clearly: “He is unfit for office. I’m thinking of the 25th Amendment, and if not, impeachment.” Sara Jacobs believed that “all options should be on the table.”

Fox News noted, however, that during a previous impeachment attempt led by Representative Al Green, nearly twenty Democrats had joined Republicans to kill the initiative. This internal rift within the opposition illustrates the reality: even if the political conditions to invoke the 25th Amendment existed, the Democratic opposition would be unable to apply consistent and unified pressure. This discord ultimately benefited Trump, who portrayed himself as the victim of an obsessive opposition—a line of rhetoric he has honed since his first term.

The Democratic opposition sometimes resembles a football team that knows the rules of the game perfectly but refuses to agree on a game plan. This division, beyond individual personalities, reveals something deeper: when facing Trump, no one really knows what the right tactic is, and everyone is afraid of making a mistake. This fear may be the true victory of Trumpism.

A president who knows and plays with his constitutional limits

One of the most revealing aspects of this entire sequence is Trump’s own relationship with the 25th Amendment. On March 26, 2026, during a cabinet meeting on Iran, the president himself brought up the procedure with disconcerting candor: “I can’t say what we’re going to do, because if I did, I wouldn’t be here much longer. They’d probably use—what’s it called—the 25th Amendment, right? Which they didn’t do with Biden, which is astounding.” This self-reference reveals that Trump is fully aware of the mechanism, its political limitations, and how he can navigate between the two.

A perfectly mastered rhetoric of reversal

In 2024, in a different context, Trump even declared that he wanted to “amend” the 25th Amendment—to use it against vice presidents who cover up a president’s incapacity, a targeted attack on Kamala Harris and Biden. He proposed that this become “grounds for immediate impeachment and removal from office.” This stance reveals a consistent strategy: Trump does not ignore the 25th Amendment; he rhetorically appropriates it, politically neutralizes it, and turns it against his opponents.

This mastery of constitutional tools for offensive purposes is one of the defining political hallmarks of Trumpism. By himself raising the specter of the 25th Amendment on March 26, 2026—to signal that he knows what could happen but that it won’t—Trump accomplished something rare: he transformed a mechanism for removal from office into a demonstration of his invulnerability. He is a chess player who uses his opponents’ pieces better than his opponents do themselves.

Trump’s self-reference on March 26, 2026, is one of the most revealing moments of his second term. He knows what could bring him down. And he talks about it to make it clear that he knows it won’t happen. It’s a display of psychological strength as much as political strength. The man is formidable—even if his methods deeply repulse me.

A Convergence of Institutional, Political, and Human Obstacles

Upon analysis, the reasons why Vance and the administration did not invoke the 25th Amendment fall into four broad categories. The first is legal: Section 4 was designed for medical incapacities, not for political disagreements or even erratic behavior—constitutional experts are unequivocal on this point. The second is arithmetic: even if triggered, the procedure would require a two-thirds vote in Congress, which Republicans would inevitably block. The third is political: Vance is preserving his MAGA capital for 2028, and no member of the cabinet is willing to be the first to break the collective loyalty.

The Human Factor: When Institutions Wait for Heroes

The fourth reason is perhaps the most fundamental: it is human. Section 4 requires those closest to the president—those who owe their positions, influence, and access to power to him—to stand up against him. This demands a level of political courage that American history has never before seen at this level. Neither the tensions following January 6, 2021, nor the Iranian crisis of 2026, nor the threats of strikes on civilian infrastructure were enough to trigger it.

Legal scholar Brian Kalt had hit the nail on the head: “The decision rests with the people in the president’s inner circle.” ” He also emphasized that cabinet members “are more aware than the general public of how a president operates”—which means their silence stems not from ignorance, but from a deliberate choice. Within that inner circle, political survival has always taken precedence over institutional courage. This may be the hardest lesson of America in 2026.

What saddens me most about this story is not Trump himself—he is what he has always been, predictable in his unpredictability. What saddens me is that the Western world’s most sophisticated democratic institutions, when faced with a man determined to exploit them, prove to be as fragile as paper. The West must learn an urgent lesson from this: democracies need not only strong constitutional mechanisms—they need men and women with the courage to put them into action.

A Constitution Put to the Test, but Not Broken

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment remains, to this day, a phantom mechanism—present in the text of the U.S. Constitution, invoked in political speeches, but never actually invoked for an involuntary removal from office in nearly sixty years. The Iranian crisis of 2026 was perhaps the moment when this mechanism was most widely discussed, most thoroughly analyzed, and most strongly demanded by the greatest number of people. And yet. Vance remained in Hungary. The cabinet continued its allegiance ceremonies. Trump tweeted his victory in the form of a ceasefire.

Toward an Inevitable Constitutional Reform

Raskin’s proposal—to create the oversight body that the Constitution has authorized since 1967 but that Congress has never established—represents the most realistic constitutional path to correcting this institutional deficit. But it requires a congressional majority that does not yet exist. The real answer to the 25th Amendment crisis may come down to the 2026 midterm elections, if the Democrats manage to retake the House or the Senate. Until then, the most sophisticated mechanism for presidential removal that Western democracies have ever devised will continue to hinge on a single factor that its architects may not have sufficiently anticipated: the political will of the men who embody it.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist