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

> In the spring of 2026, the United States came close to an institutional crisis without precedent in its modern history. More than

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Analysis
- Published: 2026-06-23
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/decryptage-le-25e-amendement-brandi-pourquoi-vance-et-le-cabinet-n-ont-pas-franc

## Key takeaways

- In April 2026, after Trump's Easter Truth Social threats against Iran, figures from both parties, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, called for invoking Section 4.
- Legal experts quoted in the article say Section 4 targets medical incapacity, not unpopular or erratic decisions.
- JD Vance, who holds the key as vice president, stayed silent, which the article links to his 2028 political ambitions.
- Trump's cabinet is described as an echo chamber, and removal would need a two-thirds vote in Congress that Republicans would block.
- Rep. Jamie Raskin's proposal for a 17-member capacity commission died in the Republican-controlled House.

## 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.

*I must admit: when I read Trump's tweet threatening to destroy "an entire civilization," I believed that this time, finally, something would happen. That the institutional safeguards would hold. I was wrong. America in 2026 teaches us, once again, that institutions only activate if the people who embody them have the courage to act.*

## 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.

*What strikes me about Section 4 is the cruel elegance of its architecture: it requires precisely the people closest to the president, those most indebted to him, to be the ones who remove him. It is asking the courtiers to overthrow the king. Politically, that is nearly impossible.*

## 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.

*There lies the Gordian knot: the American Constitution is designed for reasonable men in extreme situations, not for extreme situations caused by an unreasonable man. Trump colonized this institutional blind spot with an effectiveness that his opponents never managed to counter.*

## 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.

*When Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are demanding the same thing on the same day, this is not political spectacle — it is a systemic alarm signal. But in a liberal democracy, an alarm signal is not enough. Someone must have the key to activate it. And that key, in April 2026, no one in Trump's entourage intended to use.*

## 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 is perhaps the most tragic character in this story. He possesses the intelligence to understand what is happening, the legal stature to act, and the constitutional positioning to do so. But he chose to bet on loyalty over history. That bet — vice presidents who made it before him, including Mike Pence in 2021 — takes a long time to pay off.*

## 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 American vice president is constitutionally a character in waiting — waiting for the president to die, resign, or be removed. Vance has internalized this logic to the point of absurdity. By staying silent, he preserves his 2028 chances while watching the institutions he alone could extinguish burn. History will judge this passivity, as it judged Mike Pence's after January 6, 2021.*

## 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**."

*A cabinet of sycophants is not just a political problem — it is a systemic failure. The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution had imagined an executive in which the cabinet would serve as the last bulwark against the madness of the chief. That bulwark, Trump methodically dismantled it by selecting individuals on the sole criterion of personal loyalty.*

## 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 architects of the American Constitution built a system deliberately difficult to activate, to prevent removal from becoming an ordinary political opposition weapon. In doing so, they may have underestimated that a president sufficiently skilled at playing along the lines of this system could render it inoperative. The safeguards exist — but they only activate with resolute men willing to use them.*

## 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.

*Raskin's proposal was constitutionally solid and politically courageous. It also illustrates the structural impotence of the opposition: being right is not enough when you do not control the vote. The democratic West should meditate on this lesson — the mechanisms to control power are only worth something if parliamentary majorities decide to activate them.*

## 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.

*The same film twice. The same ending twice. This is not a coincidence — it is the demonstration that the American system of checks and balances has a gaping blind spot on the vice-presidential side. 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.*

## 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.

*The Democratic opposition sometimes resembles a football team that knows the rules of the game perfectly but refuses to agree on the game plan. This division, beyond the personalities, reveals something deeper: faced with Trump, no one truly knows what the right tactic is, and everyone is afraid of being wrong. This fear is perhaps the true victory of Trumpism.*

## 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.

*This Trump self-citation of March 26, 2026 is one of the most revealing moments of his second term. He knows what could bring him down. And he speaks of it to signal that he knows it will not happen. It is a demonstration of psychological strength as much as political strength. The man is formidable — even if his methods profoundly repel me.*

## 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.

*What saddens me most in this story is not Trump himself — he is what he has always been, predictable in his unpredictability. What saddens me is that the most refined democratic institutions in the Western world prove, faced with a man determined to exploit them, to be as fragile as paper. The West must draw an urgent lesson from this: democracies not only need solid constitutional mechanisms — they need men and women with the courage to activate them.*

## 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**.

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [PolitiFact — Following Trump's Truth Social post, could the 25th Amendment apply? — April 6, 2026](https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/apr/06/Trump-Iran-Truth-Social-25th-Amendment-Vance/)

- [The Guardian — House Democrats call for a Vance-led commission to remove Trump — April 14, 2026](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/congress-25th-amendment-commission-trump-jd-vance)

- [Politico — "Everyone must copy what I say": Trump angered by Vance over Iran message — June 18, 2026](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/18/donald-trump-jd-vance-iran-haberman-swan-book-excerpt-00967874)

### Secondary sources

- [CNN — Analysis: a bipartisan eclectic group suddenly calls for removing Trump via 25th Amendment — April 7, 2026](https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/07/politics/25th-amendment-trump-iran-war)

- [Time — What to know about the 25th Amendment as lawmakers call for its invocation — April 6, 2026](https://time.com/article/2026/04/06/25th-amendment-constitution-trump-war-iran-threat-insanity/)

- [The Guardian — JD Vance could still save his political skin. But it would require turning against Trump — April 19, 2026](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/19/jd-vance-donald-trump-vice-president-maga)

- [Fox News — Push to oust Trump exposes cracks among Democrats on strategy and timing — April 13, 2026](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/push-oust-trump-exposes-cracks-among-democrats-strategy-timing)

- [Axios — Calls to remove Trump explode among Democrats after Iran post — April 7, 2026](https://www.axios.com/2026/04/07/trump-iran-impeachment-25th-amendment-war-crimes)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/decryptage-le-25e-amendement-brandi-pourquoi-vance-et-le-cabinet-n-ont-pas-franc