Calls to Invoke the 25th Amendment Grow as Lawmakers Question Trump’s Fitness Over Greenland Threats

WASHINGTON — A growing number of Democratic lawmakers are publicly raising the most severe constitutional question imaginable about a sitting president: whether Donald J. Trump is mentally and emotionally capable of fulfilling the duties of his office.

The debate, once confined to private conversations and speculative commentary, burst into public view in January after Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts called on Vice President J.D. Vance and the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from power, citing what he described as alarming behavior related to Greenland and the use of military force.

Mr. Markey’s call followed reports that President Trump had sent a text message to Norway’s prime minister asserting that his failure to receive the Nobel Peace Prize had “freed” him to focus less on peace and more on “grabbing Greenland” for the United States. Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, is part of a NATO ally.

The remark, first reported by Newsweek and corroborated by multiple outlets, set off alarm bells among Democrats, national security experts, and U.S. allies, not because of any immediate military action, but because of what lawmakers described as erratic reasoning and dangerous judgment by a president with unilateral control over the armed forces.

“This is not about ideology or policy disagreement,” Senator Markey wrote on X on January 20. “This is about fitness to serve. The 25th Amendment exists for moments when a president’s behavior shows he is unable to safely discharge the duties of his office.”

A Fitness Argument, Not a Criminal One

The calls to invoke the 25th Amendment mark a notable shift from previous efforts to hold Mr. Trump accountable, which have focused on impeachment, criminal conduct, or abuses of power. The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, was designed specifically to address situations in which a president is unable — mentally or physically — to perform the duties of the office.

Under Section 4 of the amendment, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet may declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” immediately transferring authority to the vice president as acting president. Congress becomes involved only if the president contests the declaration.

Lawmakers invoking the amendment are not alleging a crime. Rather, they argue that Mr. Trump’s recent conduct demonstrates impaired judgment so severe that it constitutes a constitutional incapacity.

“The standard here is not illegality,” said a Democratic Senate aide involved in discussions about the issue. “It’s danger. And the danger is a president whose reasoning appears disconnected from reality, especially when it comes to war and diplomacy.”

Greenland and a Pattern of Military Adventurism

The Greenland controversy did not emerge in isolation. It followed a U.S. military operation in Venezuela earlier this term that lawmakers from both parties criticized as lacking sufficient congressional authorization and strategic clarity.

Taken together, Democrats argue, the episodes suggest a pattern: a president willing to contemplate or initiate military actions driven by personal grievances, symbolic fixations, or idiosyncratic beliefs rather than coherent national strategy.

Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona introduced a resolution aimed at blocking any military action against Greenland without explicit congressional approval. “Congress must wake up,” Mr. Gallego said on the Senate floor. “We cannot allow a president to recklessly invade another nation — especially a NATO ally — based on obsession or impulse.”

Several Republicans privately acknowledged discomfort with the Greenland rhetoric, according to people familiar with internal discussions, though none have publicly endorsed invoking the 25th Amendment. Some have indicated openness to voting for war powers legislation restricting unilateral military action.

NATO Allies and International Alarm

The implications of a U.S. threat toward Greenland extend far beyond Washington. Denmark is a founding member of NATO, and any use of force against Greenland could trigger a profound alliance crisis, potentially invoking NATO’s collective defense provisions.

European diplomats have expressed concern that Mr. Trump’s actions in Venezuela and rhetoric about Greenland signal a willingness to abandon postwar norms of alliance restraint. Several NATO officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they fear the United States could become a destabilizing force within the alliance rather than its anchor.

“The fear is not just Greenland,” said one European diplomat. “It’s what comes next — Cuba, another Caribbean state, or somewhere else entirely.”

Impeachment vs. the 25th Amendment

Inside the Democratic caucus, the Greenland episode has intensified an ongoing strategic debate: whether to prioritize impeachment proceedings or continue pressing for invocation of the 25th Amendment.

Impeachment, while more familiar, is slow and politically contingent, requiring a House majority and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Republicans currently controlling at least one chamber, Democrats acknowledge that removal through impeachment is unlikely before the 2026 midterm elections.

The 25th Amendment, by contrast, could theoretically remove Mr. Trump instantly — but only if Vice President Vance and a majority of the Cabinet act. Given that Mr. Trump appointed every Cabinet member and chose Mr. Vance as his running mate, most lawmakers concede the odds are slim.

“This is a structural flaw in the system,” said a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. “The amendment assumes Cabinet members will prioritize the Constitution over personal loyalty. History suggests that’s a very high bar.”

Political Pressure and Record-Building

Despite acknowledging the improbability of success, Democrats see value in publicly invoking the 25th Amendment. Doing so, they say, creates a record, elevates public scrutiny, and reframes the debate around fitness rather than scandal.

“This isn’t theater,” said a senior Democratic strategist. “It’s groundwork. It forces the question into the open and makes clear that if something catastrophic happens, people were warned.”

Several Democrats also view the calls as laying the foundation for impeachment should voters hand them control of Congress in 2026. In that scenario, Greenland, Venezuela, and other episodes would be assembled into a broader case alleging abuse of power and dereliction of duty.

A Constitutional Crisis Without a Resolution

For now, Mr. Trump remains in office, dismissing the criticism as “deranged” and “treasonous,” and showing no sign of backing away from his rhetoric. The White House declined to comment on the Greenland text message, and Vice President Vance has made no public statement regarding the 25th Amendment.

What remains is a constitutional standoff without a clear endpoint: lawmakers sounding alarms about presidential fitness, allies questioning American stability, and a system designed to act only if those closest to the president turn against him.

The framers of the 25th Amendment imagined moments when a president could no longer safely govern. Whether the current moment meets that threshold is now being debated not in theory, but in real time — with global consequences.

As one Democratic senator put it privately: “The question isn’t whether the system allows removal. The question is whether the system can stop a president before judgment becomes catastrophe.”