Dems Consider Dumbest Way to Get Rid of Trump

House Democrats are contemplating using the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office, a strategy so politically doomed it requires Trump’s own handpicked loyalists to turn against him.

Story Snapshot

At least 85 House Democrats are calling for 25th Amendment invocation or impeachment following Trump’s Iran rhetoric
The effort requires Vice President J.D. Vance and a Cabinet majority to declare Trump unfit, making success nearly impossible
Unusual critics including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex Jones have joined calls for removal over Iran comments
No president has ever been removed under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment since its 1967 ratification

The Fatal Flaw in Democrats’ Latest Gambit

The push to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment contains a fatal contradiction that should be obvious to anyone paying attention. Democrats need Vice President J.D. Vance and a majority of Trump’s Cabinet to declare the president unable to discharge his duties. These are Trump’s own appointees, people who owe their positions to him, expected to commit what amounts to political suicide. The mechanism designed to handle genuine presidential incapacity has become the latest tool in an endless partisan crusade that began before Trump even took his first oath of office.

Trump’s recent comments about obliterating Iranian civilization sparked this newest removal effort, despite an active ceasefire between the United States and Iran. The timing reveals the desperation. Even as tensions de-escalate, 85 House Democrats persist in demanding action. Their persistence says less about Trump’s fitness and more about their own unwillingness to accept electoral outcomes. This follows two failed impeachments during Trump’s first term and Representative Al Green’s December 2025 impeachment resolution that went nowhere.

How the 25th Amendment Actually Works

The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, addresses presidential succession and temporary incapacity. Section 4 allows the Vice President and Cabinet majority to declare a president unable to perform his duties, immediately transferring power to the VP. The president can contest this declaration, triggering a congressional vote requiring two-thirds majorities in both chambers to sustain the removal. No president has ever been removed this way. George W. Bush voluntarily invoked Section 3 twice for medical procedures, a completely different mechanism requiring no outside intervention.

Legal experts point to unresolved questions that make this effort even more dubious. Law Professor Kirsten Matoy Carlson notes Congress has never designated an alternative body to replace the Cabinet in such determinations, leaving acting Cabinet members’ roles unclear. The Library of Congress confirms the mechanics are understood, but precedent is nonexistent. Democrats are essentially hoping to create constitutional history through a process that requires cooperation from people who have zero incentive to cooperate.

The Political Impossibility Nobody Wants to Acknowledge

Even if Vance and the Cabinet somehow declared Trump unfit, a Republican-controlled Senate would need to sustain that decision with a two-thirds vote. The same Senate that acquitted Trump twice during impeachment trials. The same Republican Party that has rallied around Trump through every controversy. Analysts have correctly labeled this a long shot, which might be the understatement of the decade. The comparison to Kamala Harris’s political trajectory serves as a warning: becoming the VP who ousted a president is not a path to future success.

The inclusion of fringe MAGA voices like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex Jones in the removal chorus adds an absurd layer to this drama. Their frustration with Trump’s Iran stance creates strange bedfellows with Democrats, but it changes nothing about the constitutional math. This bipartisan fringe agreement demonstrates that outrage exists across the spectrum, but outrage alone cannot overcome the structural barriers built into the 25th Amendment. Those barriers exist for good reason: to prevent exactly this kind of politically motivated abuse.

What This Really Accomplishes

This effort will fail, deepening partisan divisions while accomplishing nothing substantive. It sets a dangerous precedent for weaponizing the 25th Amendment during policy disagreements rather than genuine incapacity. Short-term, it might pressure Trump on foreign policy decisions, but it also alienates voters who see endless removal attempts as rejection of democratic outcomes. Long-term, it erodes constitutional norms by treating emergency provisions as political tools. The economic implications of continued Iran tensions matter, but this theatrical exercise addresses none of them.

The pattern is exhausting and transparent. Democrats have pursued removal through Russia investigations, two impeachments, and now the 25th Amendment. Each failure prompts another attempt using a different mechanism. Voters who supported Trump twice understand what they are witnessing: a political establishment that refuses to accept their choice. Common sense suggests that winning elections requires better policies and persuasive arguments, not constitutional gymnastics designed to overturn results. This latest scheme epitomizes everything wrong with modern political strategy: maximizing drama while minimizing effectiveness, satisfying the base while alienating persuadable voters.