Dems Try Dumbest Way to Get Rid of Trump

House Democrats want to remove President Trump using a constitutional mechanism that requires Trump’s own handpicked team to betray him first.

Story Snapshot

At least 85 House Democrats demand invoking the 25th Amendment or impeachment following Trump’s inflammatory Iran remarks
The effort requires Vice President J.D. Vance and a Cabinet majority to declare Trump unfit—virtually impossible given their loyalty
Democrats lack unilateral power to initiate the process, making this the least viable removal strategy in their arsenal
Even some MAGA figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex Jones criticized Trump’s rhetoric, creating rare bipartisan concern
No president has ever been removed via Section 4 of the 25th Amendment since its 1967 ratification

The Constitutional Trap Democrats Walked Into

The 25th Amendment contains a structural flaw that makes it nearly useless for partisan removal efforts. Section 4 requires the Vice President and a majority of Cabinet members to declare the president unable to discharge his duties. Democrats calling for this process ignore a glaring reality: they need Trump’s own team to turn against him. Vice President J.D. Vance would have to lead the charge, joined by Cabinet secretaries Trump personally selected for their loyalty. Professor Kirsten Matoy Carlson of Wayne State University confirms Congress has never designated an alternative body to replace the Cabinet in this role.

The constitutional mechanism essentially functions as a medical safety valve, not a political weapon. George W. Bush used Section 3 voluntarily twice for medical procedures in 2002 and 2007, temporarily transferring power to Vice President Dick Cheney. That voluntary transfer bears no resemblance to the hostile takeover Democrats envision. The framers of the 25th Amendment designed it to address genuine presidential incapacity following the Kennedy assassination, not to provide an end-run around impeachment when political opponents dislike presidential rhetoric.

When Political Theater Meets Constitutional Reality

Trump’s remarks about obliterating Iranian civilization sparked the latest removal demands. The inflammatory language came amid a U.S.-Iran ceasefire, creating an awkward backdrop for calls to remove him for endangering peace. Representative Al Green filed H.Res.939 in December 2025, charging Trump with abuse of power, incitement of violence, and threats against lawmakers and judges. The resolution went nowhere, foreshadowing the fate of the 25th Amendment push.

Democrats pursued this strategy despite having already impeached Trump twice during his first term, both times failing to secure Senate conviction thanks to Republican control. The pattern reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional checks and balances. The Senate requires a two-thirds vote for conviction, a threshold Democrats cannot reach. Republicans hold the Senate majority, and Trump retains strong support within the GOP base. Even if Vance and the Cabinet declared Trump unfit, the president could contest it, sending the matter to Congress for a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

The Bipartisan Warning Democrats Ignored

Following January 6, 2021, bipartisan voices including Republican Representatives Liz Cheney and John Katko, along with Governors Phil Scott and Charlie Baker, called for Trump’s removal via the 25th Amendment or resignation. Major newspapers like the Miami Herald and Chicago Sun-Times published editorials demanding action based on claimed incapacity. None of these efforts succeeded because the constitutional barrier remained: Cabinet members refused to act. The 2026 push differs only in occurring during Trump’s second term, after voters returned him to office knowing his communication style.

The rare MAGA criticism of Trump’s Iran rhetoric—from figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex Jones—created fleeting hope among Democrats that even loyalists might break ranks. That hope misreads the political calculation. Criticizing specific statements differs vastly from declaring a president mentally unfit for office. Cabinet members who take that step end their political careers and potentially face accusations of participating in a constitutional coup. The personal and political costs far exceed any benefit, especially when the criticism stems from policy disagreements rather than genuine incapacity concerns.

Why This Strategy Backfires Spectacularly

Pursuing the 25th Amendment instead of traditional impeachment makes Democrats look constitutionally illiterate. The strategy requires them to publicly admit they cannot convince Trump’s own team that he poses a danger, yet simultaneously insist to voters he must be removed. It highlights their lack of power while generating sympathy for Trump among his base, who view the effort as undemocratic maneuvering to overturn election results. The approach also distracts from substantive policy disagreements about Iran, immigration, or domestic priorities.

Legal experts consistently label the effort a long shot for good reason. The mechanism has never successfully removed a sitting president. The Young Turks noted Democrats exploring Section 4, with calls “still coming in” even after the ceasefire announcement, but acknowledged the Vance problem. Comparing his incentives to those of Vice President Kamala Harris under a hypothetical Biden incapacity misses the point entirely—Harris belonged to the same party and might have welcomed the presidency, while Vance faces backlash from the MAGA movement if he betrays Trump.

The Real Motivation Behind the Futile Gesture

Democrats pursue this doomed strategy for messaging, not results. Calling for the 25th Amendment allows members to signal resistance to their base without the procedural commitment of formal impeachment. It generates headlines and satisfies activists demanding action, even when that action accomplishes nothing. The tactic also creates congressional floor speeches and fundraising opportunities tied to Trump’s unfitness. For 85 House Democrats representing deep-blue districts, performative opposition carries no political cost and delivers constituent satisfaction.

The long-term implications extend beyond this specific episode. Treating the 25th Amendment as a partisan tool erodes its legitimacy for genuine emergencies. Future presidents facing actual medical crises might face politicized invocation attempts, or vice presidents might hesitate to act when necessary due to precedent. The constitutional mechanism works only if all parties respect its limited, nonpartisan scope. Democrats’ 2026 gambit trades that institutional credibility for temporary political theater, leaving the nation worse off when real incapacity strikes.