Sen. Markey calls for 25th Amendment action after Trump’s Greenland message
Democratic Sen. Ed Markey has publicly urged invocation of the 25th Amendment after reports that President Donald Trump sent a text saying he would have been less likely to press Denmark for Greenland had he won the Nobel Peace Prize. The message to Norwegian leader Jonas Gahr Støre, and the subsequent reporting, prompted Markey to post on social media: “Invoke the 25th Amendment.”
The exchange spotlights a rare constitutional remedy for presidential incapacity and immediately raised questions about its practicality, legal standards and political feasibility. Markey’s call followed coverage that included a direct quote from Trump stating his diminished obligation “to think purely of Peace” after not receiving the prize.
What the 25th Amendment actually says
The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, provides procedures for dealing with presidential disability and succession. It contains several sections, but the provision most commonly discussed for removal is Section 4. That section allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Once invoked, the vice president immediately becomes acting president.
Key steps and legal thresholds under Section 4:
- The vice president and a majority of principal officers of the executive departments (the Cabinet) must submit a written declaration to Congress.
- The vice president assumes the office of acting president immediately upon that declaration.
- If the president disputes the declaration, Congress must decide the issue. A two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate within 21 days is required to keep the vice president in the acting role; otherwise, the president resumes duties.
Why Markey’s call faces steep political and legal hurdles
There is a high bar to remove a sitting president under the 25th Amendment. The language is aimed at clear and demonstrable inability to carry out constitutional duties, such as severe physical or mental incapacity. Applying it to controversial or erratic statements raises thorny questions about political judgment versus clinical inability.
Several obstacles make immediate action unlikely:
- Requirement of a majority of the Cabinet: Many Cabinet members are political appointees who may be reluctant to participate in what would be seen as a partisan maneuver.
- Presidential challenge and congressional supermajority: If the president contests the declaration, obtaining two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress is a high threshold, especially when the president’s party controls one or both chambers.
- Standard for “unable to discharge”: The Constitution does not define a precise test for inability, leaving room for political and legal disputes.
“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 think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” the reported message said.
Political context and reactions
Markey is a liberal senator facing a Democratic primary challenge, and his statement is part of a broader pattern of political accountability and rhetorical pressure. Other Democrats called for investigations, ethics reviews and more measured assessments of whether the message revealed a threat to national security or simply poor judgment.
Republicans and Trump allies dismissed calls for immediate removal as politically motivated. Many argued the president’s text, while unorthodox and provocative, did not rise to the legal standard for involuntary removal.
What would need to happen next?
If the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet chose to act, they would submit the written declaration to Congress and the vice president would become acting president. The president could then submit a written statement contesting the declaration. At that point Congress would have up to 21 days to settle the matter, and a two-thirds vote in both chambers would be required to sustain the Cabinet’s action.
Absent such united Cabinet action and supermajority congressional support, the 25th Amendment route remains politically remote. Other avenues of accountability include impeachment, congressional censure, or public and diplomatic pressure.
What analysts say
Constitutional scholars caution against politicizing the 25th Amendment. They note it was designed to address clear incapacity, not disputes over policy or temperament. Legal experts also warn that invoking the amendment for political reasons could set a difficult precedent and deepen partisan divisions.
At the same time, some commentators argue that extraordinary statements from a president about foreign territory and personal motivations merit robust oversight and investigation, even if they stop short of removal.
Bottom line
Sen. Ed Markey’s call to “Invoke the 25th Amendment” is a notable political response to an unusual presidential message. Practically speaking, removing a president via Section 4 is difficult and would require a level of bipartisan consensus that currently seems unlikely. The episode does, however, underscore the intense scrutiny that presidential communications receive and the range of constitutional and political tools available to lawmakers seeking accountability.
