Donald Trump’s latest diplomatic message has triggered a political firestorm in Washington, reviving one of the most extreme constitutional mechanisms ever written into U.S. law: the 25th Amendment. What began as an unconventional and provocative message to a foreign leader has now escalated into a serious debate among lawmakers, legal scholars, and party leaders over presidential fitness, executive power, and the limits of political tolerance in a deeply polarized era.
The controversy centers on a message Trump reportedly sent to the Norwegian prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, in which he expressed anger over not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize and tied that grievance to aggressive rhetoric about U.S. global posture. In the message, Trump appeared to conflate Norway’s role with that of the Nobel Committee, while also reiterating past claims that the United States must assert “complete and total control” over Greenland for national security reasons. He did not rule out the use of military force, language that immediately alarmed U.S. allies and lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic.
For many Democrats, this communication was not just another example of Trump’s confrontational style. They described it as a tipping point, arguing that it reflected impaired judgment with potentially catastrophic consequences. Within days, calls began circulating in Congress to explore invoking the 25th Amendment as a means of removing Trump from office.
The amendment, ratified in 1967 in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, was designed to address situations in which a president is unable to perform the duties of the office due to death, resignation, or incapacitation. It contains four sections, most of which deal with clear and uncontested transitions of power. The section now under discussion—Section 4—is the most controversial and has never been successfully used to remove a sitting president against their will.
SEE CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
