Presidential Removal Is A History of Never

The 25th Amendment has resurfaced in political discourse with the fervor of a bad penny, and this time the calls are coming from inside the Democratic house. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts sparked the latest round, posting a terse directive to social media after Trump sent a text message to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. The message linked Trump's aggressive pursuit of Greenland to his failure to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump's message to Støre read: "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America."

The text was extraordinary even by Trumpian standards. The Norwegian government promptly clarified that it has no role in selecting Nobel laureates, a distinction apparently lost in Trump's grievance calculus. Trump doubled down, questioning Denmark's ownership of Greenland and insisting the world remains insecure without American control of the territory.

Markey's call to invoke the amendment quickly gained traction among progressive lawmakers. Representatives Eric Swalwell, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, and Yassamin Ansari joined the chorus, framing Trump's behavior as evidence of unfitness for office. The digital masses amplified these demands into constitutional fever dreams, convinced that enough social media pressure might somehow compel Cabinet action.

The amendment itself was ratified in 1967, a legislative response to the constitutional ambiguity surrounding presidential succession and disability. Section 4 allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the President unable to discharge his duties, triggering an immediate transfer of power. The process includes safeguards requiring congressional involvement if the President contests the determination, demanding two-thirds votes in both chambers to sustain the removal.

This procedural labyrinth exists precisely because removing a duly elected president should be extraordinarily difficult. This amendment was framed to test the difference between political opposition and actual incapacity. Current invocations seem to conflate the two with alarming casualness.

This amendment remained curiously dormant throughout President Biden's tenure, despite persistent questions about his cognitive fitness. The selective application of constitutional concern reveals less about Trump's capacity and more about the fundamental inability of political opposition to distinguish between disagreement and disqualification.

The 25th Amendment requires evidence of genuine inability to perform presidential functions, not merely performing those functions in ways that anger political opponents. Trump's text message, regardless of its diplomatic wisdom, demonstrates decisional capacity rather than its absence.

Markey's invocation specifically cited Trump's message connecting Greenland acquisition to Nobel Prize disappointment. Setting aside the substantive policy debate about territorial expansion's geopolitical parameters, linking foreign policy to personal grievance and lacking the mental capacity to understand consequences remain categorically different accusations.

The Cabinet invocation route faces insurmountable practical obstacles even beyond legal standards. Every member of Trump's Cabinet serves at his pleasure and shares his ideological orientation. Expecting them to declare their appointee incapacitated requires a level of political suicide that transcends mere career risk into the realm of absurdist fantasy.

Congressional Democrats know this. Their calls for 25th Amendment invocation function less as serious governance proposals and more as rhetorical positioning, allowing them to signal maximum opposition while avoiding the political complexity of actual legislative resistance. Constitutional cosplay masquerading as civic duty.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has never been invoked involuntarily in its 58-year history. It's only applications involved presidents voluntarily transferring power during medical procedures under anesthesia. This track record suggests either American presidents have enjoyed remarkable mental fitness or the bar for invocation sits exactly where it should: extraordinarily high.

The historical record reinforces just how difficult removing a president actually is. No U.S. president has ever been removed from office. Impeachment by the House represents merely a formal charge, analogous to a criminal indictment. Actual removal requires conviction by two-thirds of the Senate—67 votes—a threshold that has never been reached. Three presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019 and 2021. All were acquitted by the Senate. Johnson survived by a single vote.

The constitutional system can remove officials when warranted. Eight federal judges have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office throughout American history. The machinery functions when circumstances genuinely demand it. That no president has ever met this fate speaks not to dysfunction but to the appropriately formidable barriers protecting the office from political winds.

Trump won the presidency over a year ago. Voters saw his behavior, his statements, his entire history, and elected him anyway. Both the Electoral College and popular vote went his way. Now Democrats want to use constitutional emergency powers, mechanisms designed for presidents who've had strokes or fallen into comas, to undo an election result they don't like.

The 25th Amendment represents a constitutional fire extinguisher, meant for genuine emergencies where the presidency sits vacant despite a living occupant. Treating it as a political disagreement resolution mechanism doesn't just misunderstand its purpose. It cheapens the protection it offers for those rare moments when incapacity actually strikes, training the public to dismiss legitimate future concerns as partisan noise.

The 25th Amendment won't save anyone. Neither will impeachment. He's unfit by any reasonable standard, yet perfectly protected by every legal one.

The Founders designed removal mechanisms for incapacitated presidents, not erratic ones. Trump can send unhinged texts linking foreign policy to personal grievances, but there is no easy way out.

The only remedy was the ballot box, and that ship already sailed.

@Santitos

@salinasmariasantos

Copyright © 2026 Maria Santos Salinas for FRONTeras.

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Sharing the original posts or links from FRONTeras on social media is allowed and appreciated.

FRONTeras is an independent publication protected by the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Our reporting and commentary draw from documented facts, public records, court filings, and reliable news sources. Opinions expressed in editorials are solely those of the author and do not constitute legal advice, divine truth, or the official position of FRONTeras. All articles, whether news, satirical, or commentary, are produced according to journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness, and independence. While errors in reporting are possible, they will be corrected promptly once verified with credible sources. Critiques are grounded in evidence, not malice. Attempts to censor, intimidate, or punish the press will not alter the facts we publish. FRONTeras will continue to report without fear or favor.