On Tuesday, Jamie Raskin introduced legislation tied to the possible use of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing that Donald Trump has shown behavior that raises serious concerns about his ability to serve. The Maryland Democrat pointed to controversial remarks—including threats toward Iran—as reasons to begin considering constitutional action.

While the amendment has been used in the past for temporary transfers of power—such as during medical procedures—it has never been applied to forcibly remove a sitting president. That’s partly because its most debated provision has never been fully tested, and partly because the process is complex and politically difficult. If it were ever successful, it could ultimately place JD Vance in the presidency.

The proposal, supported by Raskin and roughly 50 House Democrats, would establish a commission made up of lawmakers, former executive officials, and medical experts. Their role would be to assess whether the president’s recent actions meet the threshold required to trigger the amendment.

This strategy differs from earlier attempts to remove Trump, such as impeachment proceedings that did not succeed in the Senate. Instead of pushing directly for removal, the plan focuses on building a formal evaluation process first.

In public remarks, Raskin said confidence in Trump’s leadership has dropped significantly. He cited foreign policy rhetoric, tensions in the Middle East, criticism of religious figures, and unusual online statements as indicators of instability. According to him, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to act if national security is at risk.

The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 after the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, outlines what happens if a president dies, resigns, or becomes unable to perform their duties. It allows the vice president to take over immediately in those situations and also permits temporary transfers of power.

The most controversial part—Section 4—allows a president to be removed if the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet agree that the president cannot fulfill their responsibilities. Even then, Congress must approve the decision with a two-thirds majority.

Raskin’s proposal aims to lay the groundwork for that possibility by first creating a body to evaluate whether such a step is justified.

As for whether it will actually happen, the path remains uncertain. It would require agreement from both the Cabinet and Congress, making it politically unlikely under current conditions. Still, calls for action have intensified.

Former John Brennan has argued that the amendment seems suited for situations like this, warning about the risks of leaving military authority in unstable hands. Meanwhile, even figures outside Trump’s usual critics, such as Alex Jones, have raised questions about whether such a step should be considered.

For now, the discussion remains largely theoretical—but it has clearly entered the center of political debate.