EXPLAINER: The 25th Amendment Brandished — Why Vance and the Cabinet Did Not Take the Step

Introduction: The Specter of a Removal That Never Comes

A constitutional weapon drawn from its scabbard

In the spring of 2026, the United States came close to an institutional crisis without precedent in its modern history. More than 80 Democratic representatives, prominent senators, former Republican Trump allies, and even conservative voices like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Candace Owens all, at some point, uttered the same words: the 25th Amendment, Section 4 must be invoked. The trigger? A message of stunning brutality posted by President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Easter Sunday, threatening to wipe out the Iranian civilization from the map if Tehran did not open the Strait of Hormuz before 8:00 PM the following Tuesday.

Sixty years of procedure never activated

The American Constitution has provided, since 1967, an emergency mechanism allowing the removal of a president deemed incapable of performing his duties. This mechanism — Section 4 of the 25th Amendment — has never been involuntarily activated in nearly sixty years of existence. Despite urgent appeals, petitions, legislative resolutions, and popular pressure, Vice President JD Vance and Trump's cabinet members did not move. Why? The answer touches simultaneously on constitutional mechanics, the psychology of power, and the coldest political calculations.

This explainer revisits all the springs — legal, political, human — that prevented the triggering of the only American constitutional mechanism capable of removing a president without a trial.

Anatomy of an Amendment: Section 4 Explained

What the American Constitution actually says

The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on February 10, 1967, in the wake of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963. Its primary purpose was simple and urgent: to guarantee the continuity of the American government under all circumstances. It contains four distinct sections. The first three have been invoked several times, for vice-presidential replacements, temporary transfers of power during presidential surgeries, or successions following resignations. Section 4, however, remains intact — never activated, never tested.

A multi-step procedure with precise deadlines

According to the constitutional text, Section 4 allows the vice president and a majority of cabinet members to declare in writing, addressed to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." From that moment, the vice president becomes acting president. If the president contests this declaration, the vice president and the cabinet majority have four days to reaffirm their position. Congress must then convene within 48 hours and has 21 days to decide — by a two-thirds vote in each chamber — whether the president should remain removed from power.

Section 4 also provides an alternative option: instead of the cabinet, Congress may create by law "such other body as Congress may by law provide" to co-sign the incapacity declaration with the vice president. This body has never been established since the ratification of the amendment in 1967.

An Amendment Designed for Medical Crises, Not Political Ones

The original intent of the text's architects

Understanding why the 25th Amendment has never been used for an involuntary removal requires returning to the intentions of its architects. Senator Birch Bayh, principal author of the amendment, had specific scenarios in mind: a president victim of a heart attack, a stroke, a severe mental incapacity following illness, or an attack leaving him unconscious. Robert F. Kennedy, during congressional hearings, had formulated the notion of presidential incapacity as encompassing "the inability, physical or mental, to make or communicate a decision on his capacity to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

Legal expertise in the face of political appeals

Constitutional scholar Michael J. Gerhardt was categorical in his analysis: "The 25th Amendment has limited application to questions of whether a president is physically or mentally unable to perform his duties. It is not a remedy for misconduct that the president may have committed." Joel K. Goldstein, another reference 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 extended this analysis by noting that a president whose convictions are "so fantastical that he can no longer perform his duties" could theoretically be targeted — but that he did not think 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 real incapacity is blurry, subjective, and contested — which in itself constitutes a formidable legal barrier against any political invocation.

The Iranian Trigger of April 2026

An Easter message that shocked the world

On Easter Sunday, April 6, 2026, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social a message that immediately circulated worldwide: "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 declaration, Trump claimed that "an entire civilization will die tonight" if Iran did not yield. These threats explicitly targeted Iranian civilian infrastructure — power plants, bridges — which many legal experts immediately characterized as potential war crimes.

A heteroclite coalition of right and left

The reaction was immediate and of rare breadth. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy wrote on X: "If I were in Trump's cabinet, I'd be spending Easter calling constitutional scholars about the 25th amendment. This is completely, totally unhinged." The Iranian Embassy in South Africa officially asked Washington to "seriously consider the 25th Amendment, Section 4." More than 50 Democratic representatives — including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ro Khanna — joined this chorus.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former Trump ally, characterized the situation as "evil and madness" and demanded invocation of the amendment. Candace Owens did the same. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones asked on his show: "How do we 25th-amend him?" Former CIA director John Brennan stated that Trump was no longer capable of effectively leading the nation. Anthony Scaramucci, the brief White House communications director, urged removal, assuring that Trump was threatening to use nuclear weapons.

JD Vance: The Man Who Holds the Key

From Trump critic to his most loyal servant

The key to the 25th Amendment is named JD Vance. In the constitutional mechanics of Section 4, the vice president occupies an absolutely pivotal position: without him, no incapacity declaration is possible. It is he who must co-sign the letter, he who becomes acting president, he who assumes the most vertiginous political rupture in modern American history. Vance was not, however, a first-generation Trumpist. Before joining the MAGA movement, he had been one of Trump's most virulent critics, even privately warning that the New York billionaire could become "America's 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 VP is described by White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly as "an incredibly reliable and capable 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 resolute." When the Iranian 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 carries a notable constitutional peculiarity: unlike cabinet secretaries, who can be fired by the president at any time, the vice president is an independently elected official. Trump cannot dismiss Vance. This is precisely what would make his action under the 25th Amendment so decisive — and so rare. Not the slightest sign, however, that Vance ever considered activating it.

Vance's Political Calculation: 2028 as the Horizon

The presidential race in sight

To understand Vance's choices, one must look toward 2028. According to The Guardian, the vice president is already "positioning himself for a 2028 presidential run." His standing in polls on the Republican succession places him at the top, 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 electoral base. It could transform someone who some see as the natural heir of Trumpism into a traitor, a Benedict Arnold of populist America.

Catastrophic polls and the pressure from Rubio

But this strategy has its limits. The Guardian noted in April 2026 that polls on Vance's popularity are collapsing, to the point that he has become "the least popular vice president in modern history." He is paying for Trump's excesses without reaping the political dividends. Guardian journalist Simon Tisdall posed the question with cold brutality: would Vance continue to "passively serve as Trump's scapegoat" or 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 rebuked Vance during a meeting on the Iran strikes — Operation Midnight Hammer — retorting "I know what I'm doing" when the VP suggested moderating certain aspects of the presidential message. Vance's aides had speculated that he was "nervous" about the operation turning into a prolonged engagement. A combat veteran of the Iraq War, Vance has always presented himself as opposed to foreign military adventures. This internal contradiction was not enough to make him act publicly.

The Trump Cabinet: An Echo Chamber, Not a Counterweight

Cabinet meetings transformed into loyalty ceremonies

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 of remarkable ideological homogeneity. According to PolitiFact, "at cabinet meetings, members regularly congratulate the president." These are not deliberative meetings — they are loyalty ceremonies. After the first wave of nominations, Trump progressively sidelined any dissenting voice, replacing figures with an independent streak with figures whose primary qualification was personal allegiance.

The mechanism of purging dissonant voices

In March 2026, Joe Kent, a senior counterterrorism official, resigned in protest against the Iran war — becoming the highest-ranking official to leave the government for that reason. Trump called him a "nice man" but said he was relieved by his departure. Kent's resignation perfectly illustrates the dynamic of Trump's cabinet: those who have doubts leave, those who stay keep silent.

Vice President Vance had himself declared in March 2026 that he found Kent's resignation "justified" due to his "lack of support for Trump's agenda regarding Iran." This declaration illustrates the conformity logic governing the second term: any deviation from the presidential line is presented as a personal failing, not a legitimate disagreement. Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse summarized the situation with cruel lucidity: removal was "not realistic right now, given his eccentric cabinet of sycophants."

Constitutional and Arithmetic Obstacles

The legislative obstacle course

Even supposing Vance and a cabinet majority had decided to act — a chimerical hypothesis — the remaining constitutional obstacles are considerable. After the initial declaration, Trump would have immediately contested the decision, triggering a process in Congress. Yet Republicans control both chambers. To keep Trump removed from power, a vote of two-thirds in both chambers would be required — that is, 290 representatives out of 435 in the House, and 67 senators out of 100 in the Senate. This threshold, Democrats had never crossed during the two impeachment proceedings against Trump in 2020 and 2021. The parliamentary geography had not fundamentally changed.

Probabilities on prediction markets

The AInvest website calculated the probability of invocation on the Kalshi prediction platform at 35.1% at the height of the Iranian crisis — a level described as a "record since the beginning of the second term." But a 35% probability on a prediction platform reflects the nervousness of markets more than tangible political reality. For institutional investors, according to AInvest, the discussion about the 25th Amendment is "classic political noise masking the structural reality."

As the Flash Today website noted in its legal analysis, even if Trump were declared incapable, he would "probably have enough support in Congress to be reinstated in his functions." The architecture 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 beginning of his second term.

The Raskin Proposal: Creating the Body the Constitution Permits

A constitutional alternative ignored since 1967

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment contains an often-forgotten provision: it does not necessarily require the cabinet to declare presidential incapacity. It also authorizes "such other body as Congress may by law provide." Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin, figurehead of the constitutionalist left, seized on this opening in April 2026, proposing the creation of a permanent presidential capacity assessment commission.

A 17-member commission blocked by the Republican majority

His proposal envisioned a commission of 17 members: four former senior officials chosen on a bipartisan basis — potentially including former presidents, vice presidents, and senior cabinet members — four physicians, four psychiatrists, and a chair elected by peers. No active government member, no elected official. Raskin declared: "We have 535 members of Congress but only one president, which makes this body a crucial element in ensuring continuity of government."

50 Democratic representatives co-signed the resolution. But in the House controlled by Republicans, under Speaker Mike Johnson's chairmanship, the proposal died without reaching a vote. The initiative nonetheless illustrates that the American Constitution had anticipated the political impossibility of a loyal cabinet by providing this alternative — and that this option, available for 57 years, has never been seized by any Congress.

The Pence-Vance Irony: A Pattern Repeating Itself

January 2021 as a distorting mirror of April 2026

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

The different stakes of the second term

There is, however, a crucial difference between the two situations. In 2021, Trump was at the end of his term — the 13 remaining days limited the political interest of a lengthy procedure. In 2026, with several more years ahead, the institutional stakes are incomparably greater. The Guardian noted in April 2026 that Trump, who had himself supported the rioters wanting to see Pence hanged for treason, had no loyalty in return to offer Vance.

CNN also reported that certain cabinet members in 2021 had deliberated on the 25th Amendment "far more seriously than the public believed" — and that their deliberations only became known much later. This information suggests that public silence does not necessarily mean the absence of private doubts. But in democracy, it is public acts that count — and no American vice president has ever activated Section 4 in all of United States history.

Democratic Divisions: The Opposition Facing Its Impotence

Schumer, Jeffries, and the fractures of strategy

If Vance and the cabinet's failure is the primary cause of inaction, the fragmented strategy of the Democratic opposition also contributed to the political disorder. Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader, deliberately avoided calling for invocation of the 25th Amendment or impeachment, preferring to push for a war powers resolution. Hakeem Jeffries, in the House, encouraged discussions on the subject without personally committing to it. More than 60 Democrats called for impeachment, but this procedure was "dead on arrival" according to Fox News, in the absence of Republican support.

The merciless arithmetic of the Republican Congress

Internal divisions emerged publicly. Representative Madeleine Dean judged impeachment "not the best use of our time." Senator Sheldon Whitehouse advocated "winning the old-fashioned way" — by winning majorities in the midterms. Others, like Andy Kim, declared clearly: "He is unfit for office. I'm thinking about the 25th Amendment, and if not, impeachment." Sara Jacobs estimated that "all options should be on the table."

Fox News recalled, however, that during a prior impeachment attempt led by Representative Al Green, nearly twenty Democrats had joined Republicans to kill the initiative. This internal fracture within the opposition illustrates the reality: even if the political conditions to invoke the 25th Amendment existed, the Democratic opposition would be incapable of bringing coherent and unified pressure to bear. This cacophony ultimately benefited Trump, who presented himself as the victim of an obsessional opposition — rhetoric honed since his first term.

Trump Himself and the 25th Amendment: The Fox's Lucidity in the Henhouse

A president who knows and plays with his constitutional limits

One of the most revealing elements of this entire sequence is Trump's own relationship with the 25th Amendment. On March 26, 2026, during a cabinet meeting devoted to Iran, the president himself invoked the procedure with disarming frankness: "I can't say what we're going to do, because if I did, I wouldn't be here very long. They would probably use — what do you call it — the 25th Amendment, right? Which they didn't do with Biden, which is unbelievable." This self-reference reveals that Trump is perfectly aware of the mechanism, its political limits, and how he can navigate between the two.

A perfectly mastered rhetoric of reversal

In 2024, in a different context, Trump had even declared wanting to "modify" the 25th Amendment — to use it against vice presidents who cover up a president's incapacity, a targeted attack against Kamala Harris and Biden. He proposed that this become "grounds for immediate impeachment and removal." This posture reveals a coherent strategy: Trump does not ignore the 25th Amendment — he colonizes it rhetorically, neutralizes it politically, and turns it against his adversaries.

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

Why the Step Was Not Taken: A Synthesis of Factors

A convergence of institutional, political, and human blockages

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

The human factor: when institutions wait for heroes

The fourth reason is perhaps the most fundamental: it is human. Section 4 asks the people closest to the president, those who owe him their position, their influence, their access to power, to stand up against him. It asks for a form of political courage that American history has never yet seen at this level. Neither the post-January 6, 2021 tensions, nor the Iranian crisis of 2026, nor the threats of strikes on civilian infrastructure were enough to trigger it.

Legal scholar Brian Kalt had put his finger on the essential point: "The decision rests with the people in the president's inner orbit." He also underscored that cabinet members "are more aware than the general public of how a president functions" — which means their silence is not ignorance, but a deliberate choice. In this orbit, as always, political survival takes precedence over institutional courage. That may be the hardest lesson from America in 2026.

Conclusion: The Ghost Amendment and Its Lessons for Western Democracy

A Constitution tested, but not broken

The 25th Amendment, in its Section 4, remains to this day a ghost mechanism — present in the American constitutional text, invoked in political speeches, but never activated in practice for an involuntary removal in nearly sixty years. The Iranian crisis of 2026 represented perhaps the moment when this mechanism was most discussed, most analyzed, most demanded by the greatest number. And yet. Vance remained in Hungary. The cabinet continued its loyalty ceremonies. Trump tweeted his victory in the form of a ceasefire.

Toward an inevitable constitutional reform

Raskin's proposal — creating the oversight body that the Constitution has authorized since 1967 but that Congress has never formed — represents the most realistic constitutional path to correct this institutional deficit. But it requires a parliamentary majority that does not yet exist. The true answer to the 25th Amendment crisis may play out in the 2026 midterm elections, if Democrats manage to recapture the House or Senate. Until then, the most sophisticated presidential removal mechanism that Western democracies have ever designed will continue to rest on one factor that its architects may not have sufficiently anticipated: the political will of the people who embody it.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary sources

PolitiFact — Following Trump's Truth Social post, could the 25th Amendment apply? — April 6, 2026

The Guardian — House Democrats call for a Vance-led commission to remove Trump — April 14, 2026

Politico — "Everyone must copy what I say": Trump angered by Vance over Iran message — June 18, 2026

Secondary sources

CNN — Analysis: a bipartisan eclectic group suddenly calls for removing Trump via 25th Amendment — April 7, 2026

Time — What to know about the 25th Amendment as lawmakers call for its invocation — April 6, 2026

The Guardian — JD Vance could still save his political skin. But it would require turning against Trump — April 19, 2026

Fox News — Push to oust Trump exposes cracks among Democrats on strategy and timing — April 13, 2026

Axios — Calls to remove Trump explode among Democrats after Iran post — April 7, 2026