Senator Ed Markey’s call to invoke the 25th Amendment didn’t arrive quietly. “Invoke the 25th” was posted with the conciseness of a hammer blow. The timing was not coincidental. It followed President Trump’s unusually personal and geopolitically reckless text message to Norway’s prime minister in which he blamed his renewed interest in annexing Greenland on not being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
It wasn’t satire. The president reportedly wrote on January 18 that he no longer felt “an obligation to think purely of peace” since Norway had “decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize.” That message seemed like oddball bluster to some. However, for Markey and a number of other members of Congress, it went beyond the realm of constitutional incapacity, which is rarely addressed seriously.
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Figure | Senator Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) |
| Amendment in Focus | 25th Amendment, Section 4 |
| Date of Call | January 19, 2026 |
| Triggering Event | Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize–Greenland text to Norway’s PM |
| Legal Path | Requires VP and majority of Cabinet, plus two-thirds vote in Congress |
| Historical Usage | Never used for permanent removal of a U.S. President |
| Source Link | www.usatoday.com/politics/25th-amendment-trump-markey |
A process for handling a president who is judged “unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office” is provided by the 25th Amendment, particularly Section 4. It is purposefully ambiguous. Its ambiguity is both a strength and a weakness. Practically speaking, it calls for a formal declaration to be sent to Congress by the vice president, in this case JD Vance, and the majority of the cabinet. Congress has 21 days to confirm the removal with a two-thirds majority in both chambers if the president objects.
This has never been done in the past. Yes, there are brief changes of power during procedures like colonoscopies and surgeries, but never when it comes to issues of psychological fitness or unpredictable behavior. Because of this precedent, Markey’s call is both remarkable and emblematic. In an era when the traditional levers of accountability seem especially brittle, a constitutional pressure valve is being pushed for relevance.
Markey was by no means by himself. In a post that went viral right away, Representative Yassamin Ansari called the president “extremely mentally ill.” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove went on to say that Trump was “clearly out of control and unfit to lead.” Similar sentiments were echoed by messages on social media, especially X: this isn’t a disagreement over policy; rather, it’s a concern for institutional stability.
These lawmakers weren’t just expressing indignation when they invoked the 25th Amendment. They were referring to a legal system intended for emergencies in which the nation is put in danger due to the president’s decisions, actions, or thoughts. The goal of the amendment is particularly pertinent in situations where partisan differences are too strong or impeachment may be too slow to take decisive action.
There was more than one text that set off this alarm. Trump has been using increasingly aggressive language lately. His remarks regarding Greenland, implying that it must be “taken” if Denmark refuses to sell, have been accompanied by vague military allusions and threats of new tariffs against European countries. Some consider this to be dangerous provocation, while others see it as strategic posturing.
Trump reaffirmed his Greenland strategy during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, stating that he would discuss the purchase with “various parties.” The remarks have been described as destabilizing by European diplomats. In response, the public has expressed dissatisfaction with Greenland’s leadership, calling on the United States to stop treating them like a real estate listing.
“I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace” was the sentence I kept returning to. Even by today’s standards, it was chilling for a sitting president to associate personal disappointment with global posture.
The 25th still has a high legal bar. It is procedurally stalled without Vice President Vance’s consent and the backing of at least eight cabinet members. The risks are high in terms of politics. However, Markey’s action was more about indicating that constitutional safeguards are still in place even if they haven’t been utilized than it was about being successful.
As expected, the public’s reaction has been divisive. Trump supporters say it’s a witch hunt disguised as legalese. It’s a necessary alarm, according to critics. However, in the middle of these debates, legal experts have begun to reexamine the amendment’s structure and point out how purposefully ambiguous its language is. “Unable” refers to more general types of unfitness, such as psychological instability or careless judgment, rather than just physical incapacity.
This moment is particularly unique because the catalyst was so brief—a single message that was widely leaked and combined strategy and ego in a way that even experienced diplomats found unsettling.
Markey’s post did more than just elicit a response thanks to its clever framing. It served as a reminder to Americans that accountability systems are more than just relics from the past. They are instruments designed for conflict, uncertainty, and leaders who may, whether on purpose or not, deviate from democratic norms.
Invoking the 25th Amendment is a difficult and unlikely process. However, the discussion itself reveals a significant change. It indicates that institutional memory is still present, albeit damaged, when legislators start to prioritize legal structure over party loyalty.
Removing a president is not an easy task. It’s about reiterating the idea that authority must be exercised with clarity, poise, and caution.
That idea could be the most valuable currency for a nation navigating severe divisions.
