691
Trump’s Insane New Threat Leaves No Doubt: It’s Time for the 25th Amendment
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
691 points (98.7% liked)
politics
27262 readers
3060 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's the text all right, but the text also says that all the President has to do is present Congress with a "written declaration that no inability exists" to get his job back. So as long as the President has the mental acuity to write a letter, he gets his job back. Not a high bar at all, and your "psychotic menace" or "nervous breakdown" Presidents can still write a letter.
Yes, and that process involves a higher threshold (2/3 of both houses) than impeachment (1/2 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate). It also needs the VP to agree.
So if impeachment won't work, then this won't work either.
Except for the 25th you have his cabinet turning on him first, and that's a big deal. If his cabinet doesn't have faith in him, I would suspect that the house and senate would see that as a big deal.
Honestly, if you can get 2/3 to agree, they shouldn't need to have any qualifying condition. That should just be the bar for getting fired even if enough people simply don't like him being there.
That's already how it works with impeachment. You need 1/2 of the house and 2/3rds of the Senate to agree to remove. You are describing what already exists
That's why there's been several impeachments in the last 20 years but nobody has left office.
I'm talking about straight up ejection from the moment the vote is validated type of stuff. Not the beginning to a hopelessly long series of trials and further votes. Just a one vote, done thing that could easily be official before the pres even know it might be likely.
Presidents are far too comfy as far as job security goes. They should be at risk of being fired literally every second if enough people agree that they're a fuck-up. And depending on the reason the vote happens, they should be notified they're fired by a surprise pair of handcuffs. None of this long drawn out shit. The fastest thing possible in reference should be fitting the leader.
If his condition is in decline and this is not the last stupid thing he does it might become more likely.
Right, because that's possible.