CIA Director Brennan Says 25th Amendment Was Written With Trump in Mind
Ex-CIA Director John Brennan argues the 25th Amendment was specifically designed for a president like Trump, citing his threatening Iran rhetoric and nuclear weapons control.
Objective Facts
Former CIA Director John Brennan said Saturday on MS Now that President Donald Trump's recent statements and actions related to the Iran war raise serious questions about his fitness to remain commander in chief, arguing that the Constitution's 25th Amendment was designed for situations like this. Brennan went further, saying that Trump "clearly is unhinged" and arguing that the 25th Amendment was effectively written with a leader like Trump in mind. He pointed to Trump's Tuesday comments threatening to eliminate "a whole civilization," saying such language underscored the danger of unchecked executive power, and warned that allowing such a president to continue as commander in chief posed extraordinary risks, particularly given Trump's authority over nuclear weapons. Under Section 4, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet would need to declare Trump unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office—a step that has never been completed against a sitting president. Iran's Embassy in South Africa, as well as other Iranian embassies around the world, echoed concerns about Trump's statements, urging the 25th Amendment be considered.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Democratic Representatives Shri Thanedar of Michigan and Ro Khanna of California, along with Senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, called on Vice President JD Vance and the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment, with Murphy and Markey warning that the president's language about destroying Iranian civilization amounted to a national security risk. Former CIA Director John Brennan, appearing on MS Now, criticized Trump's handling of the US-Iran conflict and referred to the President's "narcissism" and "megalomania" while calling for invoking the 25th Amendment against him. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that Trump should be removed from office one way or another, echoing calls from dozens of Democrats who have publicly floated impeachment or the 25th Amendment. Left-leaning coverage emphasizes Brennan's argument that Trump's threats to destroy entire civilizations, coupled with his control of nuclear weapons, demonstrate he is unfit for office and that the 25th Amendment was specifically designed for such scenarios. Brennan, who led the CIA during the Obama administration, made explosive remarks during an interview on MSNBC, intensifying a growing political debate over the president's mental fitness and decision-making capabilities. Rep. Jamie Raskin noted there is "obviously tremendous anxiety in the country about the deranged conduct and behavior of the President," while acknowledging Democrats remain in the minority. Left-leaning outlets emphasize the unprecedented nature of these calls and frame them as responses to what they portray as dangerously unstable presidential rhetoric. However, coverage downplays the procedural reality that invoking the 25th Amendment through impeachment "simply denies this political reality" as "there is not a single Republican who has called for impeachment or indicated to us interest in impeachment at this point." Democratic outlets also give limited attention to the fact that party leaders are showing little appetite for pursuing either removal route before the midterm elections, fearing a futile fight could drain momentum from a campaign centered on high costs and corruption.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Trump has the support of Vice President JD Vance, his Cabinet, and the majority of Republicans in Congress, with Vance and Cabinet members being strong Trump supporters who routinely praise the president at Cabinet meetings. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., defended Trump as "one of the greatest presidents our nation has ever seen" and criticized calls for the 25th Amendment as "madness," comparing former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to Democratic critics. Right-leaning sources emphasize Trump has the support of Vice President JD Vance, his Cabinet and the majority of Republicans in Congress, making 25th Amendment invocation essentially impossible. Right-leaning commentary frames Brennan's statement as a partisan attack from an Obama-era official with limited standing. Newsday-Today noted that Brennan's public criticism comes as he is himself under criminal investigation by the Justice Department, initiated at the direction of the White House, with the inquiry reportedly "heating up" according to House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan, relating to concerns about the prior investigation into Russian interference in the 2020 election. The White House responded to the 25th Amendment calls by stating that "President Trump is working tirelessly on behalf of the American people to fulfill his commonsense America First agenda that nearly 80 million people elected him for." Right-leaning outlets largely downplay or avoid engaging substantively with Brennan's specific argument about the 25th Amendment's original intent, instead focusing on procedural impossibility and Trump's political support. Coverage also emphasizes that most Republicans have not joined calls for removal, portraying the amendment discussion as isolated to Democrats and a few outlier conservatives.
Deep Dive
The Brennan statement represents a significant escalation in Democratic calls for Trump's removal over his Iran military conduct. The specific angle is not whether Trump's Iran policy is wise, but whether his rhetoric about destroying civilizations and his control of nuclear weapons demonstrate unfitness for office under the 25th Amendment—and crucially, whether that amendment was originally intended to address judgment-based unfitness or only medical disability. Historically, the 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967 specifically to address presidential succession after Kennedy's assassination and to clarify procedures for presidential disability. It has never been invoked against a sitting president to remove them due to judgment calls or erratic behavior—only for temporary, voluntary power transfers during medical procedures. Brennan's argument essentially attempts to expand the amendment's scope beyond its stated purpose of addressing incapacity due to inability to perform duties, reframing it as a tool for addressing what he sees as reckless decision-making during wartime. This is intellectually coherent if one agrees the distinction between medical incapacity and dangerous judgment is artificial, but it represents a novel constitutional interpretation. Trump's March comment dismissing this concern by saying he wouldn't be "sitting here for long" if he revealed his Iran plans suggests he views 25th Amendment concerns as politically motivated rather than constitutionally serious. What each perspective gets right: Brennan and Democrats correctly identify that Trump's rhetoric (threatening to "eliminate a whole civilization") is unprecedented in presidential communications and that nuclear weapons amplify any risks of executive instability. Republicans correctly identify the procedural reality that the 25th Amendment requires Cabinet and VP consent, and Trump's Cabinet members routinely praise him publicly. Left-leaning analysis undersells the political implausibility of removal given Republican control. Right-leaning analysis avoids seriously engaging Brennan's substantive argument about whether the amendment should apply to judgment calls. What remains unresolved is whether Congress or the public will ultimately demand clearer constitutional boundaries on executive power during wartime, and whether the 2026 midterms shift political dynamics enough to change Republican calculations about loyalty versus constitutional duties.
Regional Perspective
Iranian state news outlet Tasnim News Agency reported Brennan's statement that the 25th Amendment "was written with" Trump "in mind," citing his concerns about Trump's threats to eliminate entire civilizations and his control over U.S. nuclear weapons. Iran's Embassy in South Africa, as well as other Iranian embassies around the world, echoed the 25th Amendment argument, urging "Seriously think about the 25th amendment, Section 4." Iranian media coverage differs from Western outlets by contextualizing Brennan's statement within the broader U.S.-Iran conflict rather than focusing primarily on internal constitutional interpretation. Iran has rejected Trump's ultimatum as an "incitement to war crimes," framing the 25th Amendment debate through the lens of international law violations rather than focusing on domestic political unfitness as Western outlets do. Iranian embassies' explicit calls for the 25th Amendment represent an unusual diplomatic intervention, treating Trump's removal as a legitimate international concern rather than purely an internal American matter. For Iran, Brennan's argument and the subsequent 25th Amendment debate represent a potential off-ramp from military escalation. By endorsing constitutional mechanisms for removing Trump, Iranian officials are signaling that they view the military conflict as stemming from the president's personal judgment rather than institutional U.S. policy, potentially allowing for face-saving de-escalation if Trump is removed or if diplomatic pressure influences his decision-making. This framing also serves Iran's broader narrative that Trump, not the United States as a whole, is the party threatening civilization-scale destruction.