In the high-stakes theater of international diplomacy, words are often as consequential as actions. This week, a single letter penned by President Donald Trump to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre appears to have tipped the scales for several lawmakers. As the President’s rhetoric regarding the “complete and total control” of Greenland shifts from suggestion to military posturing, a growing coalition of Democrats is calling for the most drastic of constitutional remedies: the invocation of the 25th Amendment.
Diplomacy or Decline? The Letter That Shook NATO
The current firestorm centers on a startling communication sent to Oslo last weekend. In it, President Trump linked the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize—a prize Norway’s Nobel Committee oversees, though the Norwegian government has no hand in selecting the winner—to his obligation to maintain global stability.
The President’s letter, confirmed by Prime Minister Støre to the Norwegian outlet VG, took an aggressive tone regarding Arctic sovereignty:
“Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace… but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” the letter read.
Trump further questioned Denmark’s “right of ownership” over Greenland, dismissing it as a historical fluke where “a boat landed there hundreds of years ago.” Most alarmingly for NATO allies, the President declared that “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland,” explicitly refusing to rule out the use of military force to secure the territory from Russian or Chinese influence.
Concerns Over Cognitive Health
The escalation of this rhetoric has revived long-standing debates regarding the President’s health. While Trump’s supporters view his Greenland stance as bold “America First” strategy, critics, including various medical experts and Senate Democrats, have expressed concern that the President may be exhibiting signs of cognitive decline or dementia.
Representative Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) did not mince words in a recent post on X: “The president of the United States is extremely mentally ill, and it’s putting all of our lives at risk. The 25th Amendment exists for a reason—we need to invoke it immediately.”
This sentiment is echoed by fellow Democrats such as Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove and Senator Ed Markey. Even within his own party, the President faces sharpening critiques from stalwarts like Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative Don Bacon.
The Constitutional “Panic Button”: How the 25th Amendment Works
Ratified in 1967 in the shadow of the Kennedy assassination, the 25th Amendment was designed to manage presidential succession and incapacitation. It is divided into four distinct sections that serve as a blueprint for executive continuity.
Section 1 & 2: These cover the basics of succession. If a president dies or resigns, the VP becomes president. If the VP seat is empty, the president nominates a replacement.
Section 3: This allows a president to voluntarily and temporarily transfer power (often used during medical procedures) by notifying leaders in the House and Senate.
Section 4: The Involuntary Removal. This is the “nuclear option” currently being discussed. It allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare in writing that the president is unable to discharge their duties.
If a president contests this declaration, the matter moves to Congress. To keep the president sidelined, a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate is required—a high bar that has never been met in American history.
The Legal and Political Reality
Despite the mounting outcry, legal experts warn that the 25th Amendment may not be the appropriate tool for a president whose actions are controversial rather than physically incapacitating.
Mark Graber, a professor of law at the University of Maryland, noted that the amendment was intended for a “medically incapacitated” leader. “We might imagine a mentally ill president whose beliefs are so fantastic that he or she can no longer perform the job, but President Trump is not suffering from that form of psychosis,” Graber told Newsweek.
Graber suggested that while a case could be made for impeachment—a different constitutional process altogether—the 25th Amendment faces significant political hurdles, especially given that many of the President’s characteristics were known to the American electorate during the 2024 election.
A Global Audience Watches
As the debate intensifies in Washington, the geopolitical stakes remain high. With NATO allies already on edge, the question of whether the President’s “Greenland Doctrine” is a strategic pivot or a symptom of something deeper remains the central point of contention.
What is your take on the current political climate? Do you believe the 25th Amendment is a necessary safeguard in this instance, or is it being used as a political weapon? Join the conversation in the comments.