There is fresh talk in Washington about an extraordinary constitutional step that, if taken, could temporarily remove President Donald Trump from power. A well-known conservative commentator has publicly urged Vice President JD Vance to initiate a process that has never before been used to sideline a sitting president against his will. The suggestion has set off a wave of questions about what the United States Constitution allows, how it would work, and whether the nation is anywhere close to seeing it tried.
The current debate comes at a tense moment. Supporters and critics alike agree that President Trump remains one of the most polarizing figures in modern American politics. Emotions have run high following recent document releases tied to the Epstein case and, more urgently, the administration’s involvement in the escalating conflict with Iran. Against that backdrop, the country once again finds itself discussing the limits of presidential power and the safeguards built into the Constitution for moments of crisis.
For many Americans, the question at the heart of this story is simple. Could the vice president and the president’s top advisers really take away the president’s authority, even for a short period? The short answer is yes, but only under very specific circumstances and through a clear, formal process laid out in the Constitution’s 25th Amendment. That process has only been partially used before, and never in the way now being discussed.
The unusual call directed at Vice President JD Vance
The spark for this latest round of speculation came from Scott McConnell, a conservative writer who co-founded The American Conservative magazine. Although McConnell has roots on the political right, he has been outspoken in his criticism of President Trump’s approach to the Middle East. In plain terms, McConnell advised Vice President JD Vance to back what he called a “25th Amendment transition,” encouraging him to help move presidential power away from Trump and to do so without seeking personal political gain down the road.
McConnell went so far as to outline how he thought such a move should be communicated. He suggested that Vance publicly say he would not run for president in 2028, argue that the step is necessary for the country, and help identify a vice president in the interim whom both parties could accept. He floated Senator Chris Murphy as one possible name, highlighting Murphy’s opposition to war while emphasizing that he is experienced and pragmatic.
In follow-up comments, McConnell accused the president of acting on questionable intelligence related to the regional crisis and claimed that the situation had worsened because of it. These remarks, coming from someone known on the right, added to a growing chorus of voices wrestling with how far the United States should go in the current conflict and who should be at the helm while those decisions are made.
What the 25th Amendment actually says
Many people first heard of the 25th Amendment during past moments of presidential health scares or after national crises. It was proposed and ratified in the 1960s, in the years after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, to make the line of succession and the transfer of power clearer and more reliable. The Amendment includes several sections, each serving a different purpose. Two parts are most relevant to today’s discussion.
Section 3 allows a president to voluntarily hand over power, for example during a medical procedure, and then reclaim it afterward. This has happened a few times in recent history when presidents underwent anesthesia. It is a straightforward, temporary handoff designed to keep the government running smoothly.
Section 4 is the part everyone is focusing on now. It addresses the rare circumstance when a president is considered unable to perform the duties of the office but does not agree to step aside. In that case, the vice president and a majority of the heads of the executive departments—the Cabinet—can formally state that the president is unable to serve. Once they do, the vice president becomes acting president immediately upon delivering that declaration to Congress.
The key word here is unable. The Constitution does not define it with a precise medical or legal standard, and that ambiguity is one reason Section 4 has never been used to remove a president against his wishes. The framers of the Amendment wanted a tool that could be adapted to many kinds of emergencies, including medical incapacity or other situations where a president simply could not do the job. But they also built in strong safeguards to keep the provision from being abused.
How a Section 4 handover would unfold, step by step
To understand what McConnell is urging, it helps to picture the timeline. First, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet would have to sign and send a written declaration to the leaders of Congress stating that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. The vice president would then immediately become acting president.
At that point, the sitting president could respond in writing that he is able to serve. If the president does that, the vice president and Cabinet have four days to disagree and send another written declaration stating the president is still unable. If they do send that second declaration, the matter goes to Congress for a final decision. During that time, the vice president continues as acting president.
Congress then has up to 21 days to debate and vote. To keep the vice president in place as acting president, both the House and the Senate would each have to approve that decision by a two–thirds vote. If either chamber falls short of that high bar, the president would retake full powers. These thresholds are deliberately difficult to meet, making any use of Section 4 extremely challenging without broad bipartisan agreement.
This is why the suggestion now on the table is so remarkable. Section 4 has never been carried to completion against a president’s wishes. In contrast, the voluntary handoff in Section 3 has happened before for a few hours at a time when presidents underwent medical procedures. The current debate is about a far more consequential and contested route.
Why Vice President JD Vance is part of the conversation
JD Vance, the vice president, is not just a political figure in Washington; he is also a military veteran with firsthand experience in the region. He served with the United States Marine Corps and spent time in Iraq in 2005. Those experiences have shaped his views on foreign entanglements. By reputation, he is cautious about large-scale military interventions and tends to approach overseas conflicts with skepticism.
That posture may help explain why, according to reports, Iran has indicated it would prefer to speak directly with Vance. In the current crisis, the perception of a potential interlocutor who is careful and war-skeptical could carry weight in diplomatic circles. Some observers believe Vance could be a helpful channel for dialogue, even if he remained firmly within the administration’s chain of command.
Inside Washington, though, there is a clear rule about who picks negotiators. The White House has already made it plain that the president alone decides who represents him. In public remarks, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt underlined that point and noted that Vice President Vance, along with Secretary Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, would be involved as the president directs. Those comments signaled that while Vance may be seen abroad as a potential go-between, the decision about any official talks remains firmly with the president.
The suggestion that Vance should help launch a Section 4 process adds another layer. It puts him at the center of a constitutional question, one that would require not only his agreement but also the cooperation of a majority of the Cabinet. That combination of legal authority and political risk explains why calls to invoke Section 4, no matter who is in office, are both rare and controversial.
Are the United States and Iran actually talking?
While the White House has emphasized that it is pursuing avenues to de-escalate the conflict, officials in the region have cast doubt on how far those efforts have progressed. President Trump has said that discussions about a ceasefire were strong and ongoing. Yet Iranian state media quoted Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan as saying there have been no direct or indirect negotiations between the two countries. A spokesperson in Tehran added a sharp rebuke, suggesting the United States was, in essence, “negotiating with itself.”
That gap between claims and counterclaims has left many Americans uneasy. After years of complex relations—with prior nuclear talks, sanctions, and periodic escalations—conflicting messages are nothing new. Still, the stakes feel particularly high now. Markets, allies, and ordinary citizens are watching closely, aware that even a small miscalculation could have outsized consequences across the region and at home.
Into this tense mix stepped McConnell’s advice to Vice President Vance. His call reflects a deeper fear among some on the right and the left: that a hasty move, based on poor information or clouded judgment, could draw the United States into a wider war. For those people, Section 4 is not merely a legal curiosity; it is a backstop for moments when calmer heads are needed most.
How today’s debate fits into America’s recent political history
It may help to remember how the country has handled leadership questions before. The United States has a long tradition of peaceful transfers of power, even in turbulent times. Impeachment has been tried in recent decades, but it is different from the 25th Amendment. Impeachment is a legal and political judgment by Congress that a president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The 25th Amendment, by contrast, is about ability to serve, not about punishment or wrongdoing.
President Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, which centered on a phone call with the president of Ukraine, was a divisive moment. He remained in office, and the episode deepened political rifts that have yet to fully heal. The subject returning now is not impeachment. It is whether the vice president and Cabinet could say, in effect, that the president is unable to carry out his duties in a time of crisis.
It bears repeating that Section 4 has never been used to forcibly remove power from a president. Its novelty is part of why it attracts attention whenever the nation is stressed. But its difficulty is also why it has not been attempted to completion. Unless a large group of senior officials and a strong, bipartisan majority in Congress all move in the same direction, Section 4 will not displace a president for long.
What would happen if Section 4 were attempted now
If Vice President Vance and a majority of the Cabinet sent the declaration to Congress, Vance would immediately become acting president. The White House would keep operating, and the military would follow lawful orders through the chain of command. Markets and foreign capitals would take notice, of course, but the design of the Amendment aims to be orderly, not chaotic.
The president could quickly contest the move, and then the clock would start. The vice president and Cabinet would have four days to reply. After that, Congress would have up to 21 days to resolve the matter. Throughout this period, the vice president would remain acting president unless and until Congress ruled otherwise. The final decision would require a two–thirds supermajority in both the House and the Senate to keep the vice president in charge.
In practical terms, that means only a situation that unites a very large share of lawmakers from both parties could sustain a Section 4 transition. Anything short of that would return full power to the president. This is precisely the balance the Amendment intended to strike—making it possible to address a real emergency without enabling routine political maneuvers to upend the will of the voters.
Why this conversation matters for everyday Americans
For many people, the legal steps are less important than the larger concern: confidence that someone steady and thoughtful is steering the ship of state. The talk of Section 4 reflects anxiety about war and peace, about trustworthy information, and about responsibility at the very top of government. People who remember past crises—from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Gulf War and the long years in Afghanistan and Iraq—know how quickly events can turn, and how critical measured decision-making can be.
Vice President Vance’s unique profile, as both a member of the administration and a veteran shaped by war, makes him a focal point for these hopes and fears. Whether or not Section 4 is ever invoked, his influence as a counselor inside the White House and as a potential voice in any talks with Iran could prove significant. The same is true for other senior officials named by the press secretary as part of the president’s negotiating team.
In times like these, the Constitution’s guardrails serve as a reminder that the United States has weathered hard tests before. They also remind us that the extraordinary is meant to stay extraordinary. The 25th Amendment is there if the nation truly needs it. But it is not designed for everyday disagreements. It is designed for emergencies that demand unity, clarity, and legal certainty.
The bottom line for now
Calls for a 25th Amendment transition have surfaced before in American politics, usually in heated moments. They are surfacing again now because the stakes feel high, the facts contested, and the path forward uncertain. Yet the hurdles to using Section 4 remain as high as ever, by design. Without wide agreement among top officials and a large bipartisan majority in Congress, the presidency would not change hands for long.
Meanwhile, the urgency of events overseas has not slowed. Iran’s officials publicly question whether real talks are happening. The White House insists it is pursuing options to reduce tensions, and it has named the people the president wants involved. In this environment, how top leaders speak, whom they trust, and how they weigh intelligence could make all the difference between escalation and resolution.
For Americans watching at home, especially those who have lived through decades of foreign crises, the questions are familiar. Who is making the final calls? Are they getting the best information? And is there a clear plan to keep the country safe while avoiding a wider war? The 25th Amendment conversation is part of that bigger story. It underscores how seriously many people take the responsibilities of the presidency—and why, in moments like this, the nation’s constitutional tools come under such careful, intense scrutiny.
