25th Amendment, Ed Markey, and Trump: Why the “Removal” Talk Spiked and What the Amendment Actually Does

The 25th Amendment is getting pulled back into headlines not because it’s easy to use, but because it sits at the intersection of politics and uncertainty: it’s the Constitution’s clearest tool for handling a president’s inability to serve, yet it depends on the president’s own team to trigger the hardest part of it. In recent days, Sen. Ed Markey and other Democrats have urged its use against President Donald Trump, tying their calls to a burst of controversial statements and overseas-related remarks. What changes next is less about slogans and more about thresholds the amendment quietly demands.

The 25th Amendment Is a Continuity Plan, Not a Shortcut

Ratified in 1967, the 25th Amendment was designed to prevent power vacuums and confusion during crises. It answers two big questions: Who takes over if the president can’t serve? and How do you fill a vice-presidential vacancy?

Here’s the plain-English map of its four sections:

• Section 1: If a president dies, resigns, or is removed, the vice president becomes president.

• Section 2: If the vice presidency is vacant, the president nominates a new vice president, and both chambers of Congress must approve by a majority vote.

• Section 3: The president voluntarily transfers power temporarily (often during medical procedures). The vice president serves as acting president until the president declares they’re able again.

• Section 4: The most contested and most talked-about section: it allows a transfer of power without the president initiating it—but only through a specific, high-bar process led by the vice president and the Cabinet.

The key point: Most real-world use has been Section 3 (temporary, voluntary). The high-drama conversations people have online almost always refer to Section 4, which is built to be difficult.

Section 4, in one compact flow

That structure is why Section 4 talk often burns hot and then fades: the first move isn’t in Congress, and the final move requires supermajorities.

Why Ed Markey and Others Are Pointing to Trump Now

The latest wave centers on claims by Democratic lawmakers that President Trump’s recent public behavior and messaging reflect instability or impaired judgment. Sen. Ed Markey has been among those urging that the 25th Amendment be invoked. The push has been echoed by other Democrats, with the arguments clustering around three themes:

• Foreign-policy rhetoric involving Greenland: Critics argue that Trump’s renewed push to assert U.S. control over Greenland is reckless or detached from diplomatic reality.

• A message involving Norway’s prime minister: A reported exchange has been treated by critics as another example of erratic posture and grievance-driven decision-making.

• A high-profile speech appearance overseas: Commentary intensified after a major public address in Switzerland that drew scrutiny of both content and delivery, with critics claiming it raised questions about fitness.

Supporters and administration officials have dismissed the 25th Amendment chatter as partisan theater, and there is no public sign that the vice president and Cabinet are moving toward any formal action. That gap matters: Section 4 cannot begin with a senator’s demand, a House letter, or a viral campaign. It begins only if the vice president and a majority of Cabinet-level officials decide to initiate it.

What This Means Next

In the short term, expect more noise than motion. Calls to use the 25th Amendment tend to function as a political flare: they signal alarm, force media attention, and frame an opponent’s conduct as beyond normal policy disagreement. But the amendment’s mechanics impose a reality check.

Short-term changes to watch

• Whether the conversation shifts from “invoke it” to “create an independent body” to assess presidential ability (an idea that sometimes gets floated around the amendment’s language).

• Whether any additional lawmakers join Markey in pushing the issue in formal settings, not just public statements.

• Whether the White House and allies respond by reframing the debate as an attack on legitimacy rather than a fitness question.

Who benefits and who loses (neutral)

• Benefits: Political actors who want to spotlight concerns about presidential behavior without running an impeachment process; opponents who want a high-impact message with a simple headline.

• Loses: Anyone expecting a quick constitutional off-ramp; voters who assume Congress can “vote the 25th” into existence; institutions caught between health/fitness claims and partisan incentives.

The core hinge
Unless the vice president and a Cabinet majority signal willingness to act—and unless, in a dispute, two-thirds of both chambers are realistically in play—this remains a pressure campaign, not a near-term transfer of power.

If you want, tell me whether you’re trying to understand the amendment itself (civics explainer) or the current Markey–Trump fight (news-focused timeline). I can tighten the next version to that angle.