The escalating controversy surrounding President Donald Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland has triggered a rare constitutional flashpoint in Washington, with Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) publicly calling for the invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office.
While the demand has intensified political debate, its legal viability remains highly constrained by constitutional text, historical precedent, and political realities.
The Trigger: Greenland, Rhetoric, and Presidential Judgment
Senator Markey’s call followed reports that President Trump sent a message to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, suggesting that his failure to receive the Nobel Peace Prize had diminished his obligation to “think purely of peace” in relation to Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark and a NATO ally.
Lawmakers including Rep. Yassamin Ansari and Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove echoed Markey’s concerns, arguing that the president’s rhetoric and threats toward an allied nation demonstrate instability, poor judgment, and a willingness to endanger U.S. national security interests. Collectively, they framed the behavior as evidence that the president is “unfit for office.”
The White House has dismissed the criticism as “political theater,” maintaining that the administration’s posture toward Greenland reflects strategic national interests rather than impulsive decision-making.
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment: A High Legal Threshold
At the center of the debate is Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which allows for the temporary transfer of presidential power when a president is deemed “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
Legally, the process is stringent:
- Initiation: The Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet must submit a written declaration to Congress stating that the president is unable to perform his duties.
- Immediate Effect: Upon transmission, the Vice President assumes the powers of the presidency.
- Presidential Challenge: The president may contest the declaration.
- Congressional Vote: Congress must decide the matter within 21 days.
- Supermajority Requirement: A two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate is required to keep the president removed. Failing that, presidential authority is restored.
Crucially, the amendment was designed to address incapacity, not misconduct. Historically, this has been understood to mean physical or cognitive inability, such as severe illness, coma, or incapacitation—not controversial policy decisions or inflammatory rhetoric.
Historical Context and Legal Precedent
Section 4 has never been successfully invoked. Even during periods of intense political instability—including the Nixon and Reagan administrations—it was not used as a mechanism for addressing erratic or dangerous behavior. Legal scholars widely agree that expanding its use to encompass perceived recklessness or poor judgment would represent a major constitutional reinterpretation.
Courts have never adjudicated a Section 4 removal, leaving the issue squarely within the political branches. As such, any attempt to invoke it would hinge not on judicial standards, but on political consensus—particularly the cooperation of the vice president and Cabinet.
Political Expression vs. Constitutional Mechanism
From a legal standpoint, Senator Markey’s call functions more as constitutional signaling than a practical removal strategy. It underscores congressional concern while highlighting the limits of existing mechanisms for responding to perceived presidential instability outside impeachment.
Unlike impeachment—which addresses “high crimes and misdemeanors”—the 25th Amendment does not require wrongdoing, but it also does not accommodate disputes over temperament, rhetoric, or foreign policy posture. Without evidence of incapacity and without executive branch participation, invocation remains legally improbable.
Conclusion: A High Bar Unlikely to Be Met
While Senator Markey’s invocation of the 25th Amendment reflects deep alarm among some lawmakers, the constitutional framework makes removal under Section 4 exceedingly unlikely. The amendment’s design, history, and procedural demands strongly favor restraint, reserving its use for clear and demonstrable incapacity rather than controversial conduct.
Absent the support of the vice president, a majority of the Cabinet, and overwhelming bipartisan consensus in Congress, the call is best understood as a political warning grounded in constitutional language, rather than a viable legal pathway to presidential removal.
