Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Jamie Raskin’s push for 25th Amendment to end Trump presidency is a mistake

Published

on

ByAndy Craig

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., together with 50 Democratic co-sponsors, has reintroduced his bill to create a “Commission on Presidential Capacity” under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. It is being framed as a response to the crisis of a president who threatened to annihilate an entire civilization, who shares renderings of himself as Jesus Christ while feuding with the pope and who posts snuff videos on social media — to name the highlights from just the past couple of weeks.

In other words, the most powerful man in the world appears to be manifestly insane. It’s not great. But this proposal is misguided on the details, and more importantly, a distraction from what Congress can and should do: impeach Donald Trump and remove him from office.

This is not a new idea from Raskin. He first proposed essentially the same bill in 2017, and again in 2020 during Trump’s bout with Covid. I wrote about it at the time for the Cato Institute, and my objections have not changed. If anything, the current situation makes the flaws in this approach more glaring.

The most powerful man in the world appears to be manifestly insane. It’s not great.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment allows for the involuntary transfer of presidential power to the vice president. It was designed for genuine incapacity: a president who is comatose, or has been shot, or has gone missing in a plane crash. It was drafted in the shadow of the Kennedy assassination and ratified at the height of the Cold War, when the overriding concern was nuclear command and control. The nightmare scenario was having nobody authorized to act if the president was suddenly unable. The text grants this power to the vice president together with “a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments[iethe Cabinet]or of such other body as Congress may by law provide.”

Raskin’s bill would create that “other body” to displace the Cabinet. This new entity would be a 17-member commission of physicians, psychiatrists and retired government officials chosen by congressional leaders of both parties. The commissioners would, if directed by Congress, conduct a medical examination (or try to; the president can’t be forced to cooperate) and then report back. The agreement of the vice president would still be needed to initiate a transfer of power.

Set aside the immediate unlikeliness of this passing a Republican-controlled Congress, overriding a presidential veto and then getting JD Vance to use it. Messaging bills can still serve a purpose. The deeper problem is conceptual. What is happening with Trump is not a medical question. Or rather, it is not merely a medical question, and framing it as one lets both him and Congress off the hook.

Trump may be deranged, but he is not incapacitated in the way the framers of the 25th Amendment envisioned. He is likely committing high crimes and misdemeanors, but he is not literally “unable” to issue orders and wield his powers, however ludicrously and improperly. The fact that he is also experiencing evident mental and physical decline while he goes on a constitutional crime spree does not change the required remedy. If he were sharp as a tack, perfectly healthy and several decades younger, he would still need to be removed.

The bill’s inclusion of psychiatrists is particularly troubling. Diagnosing a political leader with a mental health condition, and then using that diagnosis as the basis for removing him from office, is extremely problematic.

The medical ethics are dubious, to put it mildly. This is a political decision of the highest order, a matter for our nation’s constitutional officers. It is not a diagnostic exercise for deciding how best to treat a patient. Consultation with medical experts might inform the decision-making, but doctors do not belong in the driver’s seat.

There are practical problems as well. The 25th Amendment was designed for speed, when a new commander-in-chief is needed within minutes, not days.

Trump may be deranged, but he is not incapacitated in the way the framers of the 25th Amendment envisioned.

Cabinet members are already serving, in the loop, reachable at a moment’s notice. A commission including retired officials scattered across the country, most of whom are elderly themselves, is not an improvement. And for the purpose envisioned here — removing a president whose behavior is dangerous but who remains ambulatory and vocally resistant — it is worse than useless. Even if the commission declared Trump incapable, he could simply send a letter to Congress saying he disagrees. You would then need two-thirds of both chambers to side against him under the 25th Amendment, a higher hurdle than impeachment.

The authors of the 25th Amendment deliberately wanted to avoid creating a tempting workaround to impeachment. So they made it more difficult, requiring an even greater degree of consensus. It’s also less permanent: The vice president merely becomes acting president. Officially, the president is still the president and the vice president is still the vice president. The powers are transferred but not the title. He would still be hanging around as a sort of president in limbo, able to repeatedly challenge the alleged incapacity for the remainder of his term.

Congress has the power to remove the president from office. The House can impeach with a simple majority, and any individual representative can force a vote on it as a privileged resolution. The case is overwhelming and has been for some time. Take your pick of the many possible charges; we’re in no danger of running out.

Yes, conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds vote, perhaps unobtainable. But that is not a reason to demur.

The political strategy argument against impeachment doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Both previous Trump impeachments were supported by majority public opinion. After Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, he lost the election in 2020. With Jan. 6 and the second impeachment fresh in mind, Democrats beat expectations in 2022, and those Republicans most closely associated with Trump’s election denialism fared even worse. His narrow victory in 2024 happened when Democrats were not exactly at peak performance, speaking of medically questionable presidents. And now, in all the chaos and absurdity, his approval ratings are lower than ever.

More to the point, impeachment is not only about removal. It is a statement of principle. It forces a public debate, puts the spotlight where it belongs and creates a historical record. Even if the Senate fails to convict, or even if it fails in the House, the act of pursuing impeachment has value. It says this did not all go unrebuked with passive acquiescence.

The 25th Amendment talk, by contrast, does none of that. It medicalizes what is fundamentally a political, legal and moral crisis. It frames the problem as “he might be unwell” rather than “he is breaking the law and abusing his powers.” One is an excuse; the other is culpability.

This is all, at best, a well-meaning detour. Less charitably, it is a way for congressional leadership to say they are doing something while dodging the real fight.

rumImpeachment is not only about removal. It is a statement of principle. It forces a public debate, puts the spotlight where it belongs and creates a historical record.

Raskin himself seems to understand this, to be fair. He has averred that he is not advocating for one solution over another, merely explaining the options. As a law professor, his interest in lesser-known parts of the Constitution is genuine. And, of course, he’s no stranger to impeachment; he was the House’s lead manager making the case to the Senate after the attack on the Capitol. He is not taking the problem lightly or trying to minimize the danger.

Nevertheless, every day spent talking about a Rube Goldberg machine for medically diagnosing Trump is a day not spent building the case for the only real solution.

We don’t need medical doctors and retired officeholders to tell us what we can see with our own eyes. We don’t need to nail down exactly which checklists he satisfies in the DSM-5. We need our elected representatives to do their duty. Trump’s disturbed personal psychology is real but immaterial. The problem is he is a walking, talking, nonstop offense against our constitutional system of government. Impeachment is the tool Congress has to address that, and its oath-sworn obligation demands it use it.

Andy Craig

Andy Craig is a senior editor at The UnPopulist.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Trump optimistic about Iran war as Lebanon truce takes effect

Published

on

Trump optimistic about Iran war as Lebanon truce takes effect

BEIRUT (AP) — Iran said it fully reopened the Strait of Hormuz to commercial vessels, but questions lingered Saturday about how much freedom ships actually had to transit the waterway as Tehran maintained its grip on the who got through and threatened to close it again if the U.S. kept in place its blockade of Iranian ships and ports.

Iran’s Friday announcement about the opening of the crucial body of water, through which 20% of the world’s oil is shipped, came as a 10-day truce between Israel and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon appeared to hold.

U.S. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, said the American blockade “will remain in full force” until Tehran reaches a deal with the U.S., including on its nuclear program.

Asked by a reporter Friday night what he will do if there’s no deal when the ceasefire expires next week, Trump said, “I don’t know. … But maybe I won’t extend it, so you’ll have a blockade and unfortunately we’ll have to start dropping bombs again.” But he also told reporters accompanying him aboard Air Force One to Washington that a deal is “going to happen,” and flatly rejected the idea of restrictions or tolls by Iran on the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump had earlier celebrated the Iranian announcement, posting on social media that the strait was “fully open and ready for full passage.” But minutes later, he issued another post saying the U.S. Navy’s blockade would continue “UNTIL SUCH TIME AS OUR TRANSACTION WITH IRAN IS 100% COMPLETE.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X that ships would use routes designated by the Islamic Republic in coordination with Iranian authorities, suggesting Iran planned to retain some level of control over the channel. It was not clear if vessels would have to pay tolls.

Iranian officials said the blockade was a violation of last week’s ceasefire agreement between Iran and the U.S. The strait “will not remain open” if the blockade continues, Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, posted on X early Saturday.

A data firm, Kpler, said movement through the strait remained confined to corridors requiring Iran’s approval.

U.S. forces have sent 21 ships back to Iran since the blockade began on Monday, U.S. Central Command said on X.

Trump says new talks could happen soon

Trump imposed the blockade as part of his effort to force Iran to open the strait and accept a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire to end almost seven weeks of war that has raged between Israel, the U.S. and Iran.

The president’s decision to continue the blockade despite Iran’s announcement appeared aimed at sustaining pressure on Tehran as the fate of the two-week ceasefire reached last week remained uncertain.

Direct talks between the U.S. and Iran last weekend were inconclusive, as the two nations could not agree about Iran’s nuclear program and other points.

Trump suggested a second round of talks could happen this weekend.

“The Iranians want to meet,” he said in a brief telephone interview with the news outlet Axios. “They want to make a deal. I think a meeting will probably take place over the weekend.”

Oil prices fell Friday on hopes the U.S. and Iran were drawing closer to an agreement . The head of the International Energy Agency had warned that the energy crisis could get worse if the strait did not reopen.

Two Iranian semiofficial news agencies seemed to challenge Araghchi’s announcement about the strait.

Considered close with Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard, the Fars news agency issued a series of posts on X criticizing what it said was a lack of clarity over the decision to reopen the waterway and a “strange silence from the Supreme National Security Council and the negotiating team.”

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has recently acted as the country’s de facto top decision-making body, amid doubts over the status of the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who was reportedly wounded early in the war.

The Mehr news agency also said the decision to reopen the strait needed “clarification” and required the supreme leader’s approval.

Truce in Lebanon could help US-Iran peace efforts

The ceasefire in Lebanon could clear one major obstacle to an agreement between Iran, the United States and Israel to end the war. But it was unclear to what extent Hezbollah would abide by a deal it did not play a role in negotiating and which will leave Israeli troops occupying a stretch of southern Lebanon.

Trump said in another post that Israel is “prohibited” by the U.S. from further strikes on Lebanon and that “enough is enough” in the Israel-Hezbollah war.

The State Department said the prohibition applies only to offensive attacks and not to actions taken in self-defense.

Shortly before Trump’s post, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel agreed to the ceasefire in Lebanon “at the request of my friend President Trump,” but that the campaign against Hezbollah is not complete.

He claimed Israel had destroyed about 90% of Hezbollah’s missile and rocket stockpiles and added that Israeli forces “have not finished yet” with the dismantling of the group.

Celebrations in Beirut

In Beirut, celebratory gunshots rang out at the start of the truce. Displaced families began moving toward southern Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs despite warnings by officials not to return to their homes until it became clear whether the ceasefire would hold.

The Lebanese army and U.N. peacekeepers in southern Lebanon had reported sporadic artillery shelling in some parts of southern Lebanon in the hours after the ceasefire took effect.

An Israeli strike in the area of Kounine hit a car and a motorcycle, killing one person and wounding three, including a Syrian citizen, the Lebanese Health Ministry said Friday. It was the first airstrike and first fatality reported since the truce took effect.

There was no immediate response from the Israeli army or Hezbollah.

An end to Israel’s war with Hezbollah was a key demand of Iranian negotiators, who previously accused Israel of breaking last week’s ceasefire with strikes on Lebanon. Israel had said that deal did not cover Lebanon.

The fighting has killed at least 3,000 people in Iran, more than 2,290 in Lebanon, 23 in Israel and more than a dozen in Gulf Arab states. Thirteen U.S. service members have also been killed.

Israel says it will keep troops in Lebanon

Israel’s hard-line Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel would continue to hold all the places where it is currently stationed, including a buffer zone extending 10 kilometers (6 miles) into southern Lebanon. He said many homes in the area would be destroyed and Lebanese residents will not return.

Hezbollah has said Lebanese people have “the right to resist” Israeli occupation and that their actions “will be determined based on how developments unfold.”

Israel and Hezbollah have fought several wars and have been fighting on and off since the day after the start of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. Israel and Lebanon reached a deal to end the earlier fighting in November 2024, but Israel has kept up near-daily strikes in what it says is an effort to prevent the Iran-backed militant group from regrouping. That escalated into another invasion after Hezbollah again began firing missiles at Israel in response to its war on Iran.

Mediators seek compromise on three points

In the Iran war, mediators are pushing for compromise on three main points: Iran’s nuclear program, the Strait of Hormuz and compensation for wartime damages, according to a regional official involved in the mediation efforts.

Trump on Friday suggested Iran has agreed to hand over its enriched uranium.

“The USA will get all the nuclear dust,” Trump said in a speech in Arizona. “We’re going to get it by going in with Iran with lots of excavators.”

Nuclear dust is the shorthand Trump frequently uses to refer to the highly enriched uranium that is believed buried under nuclear sites the U.S. bombed during last year’s 12-day war between Israel and Iran.

If true, it would be a major concession from Iran and would lock in a key demand of the U.S. to end the conflict. Neither Iran nor countries acting as intermediaries in the conflict have said Tehran has made such an agreement.

Trump said no money would exchange hands to end the war.

___

Madhani reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Ben Finley in Washington, Samy Magdy and Amir Rajdy in Cairo, Munir Ahmed in Islamabad, Abby Sewell in Beirut and Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv, Israel, contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Iran reimposes restrictions on Strait of Hormuz, accusing U.S. of violating deal to reopen it

Published

on

Iran reimposes restrictions on Strait of Hormuz, accusing U.S. of violating deal to reopen it

CAIRO (AP) — The dueling blockades in the Strait of Hormuz lurched into uncharted waters on Saturday. The United States pressed ahead with its campaign to choke off Iranian ports and Iran reversed an initial move to reopen the waterway, firing on a ship attempting to pass.

Confusion over the critical chokepoint threatened to deepen the energy crisis roiling the global economy and push the two countries toward renewed conflict, even as mediators expressed confidence a new deal was within reach.

Iran’s joint military command said on Saturday that “control of the Strait of Hormuz has returned to its previous state … under strict management and control of the armed forces.” It warned that it would continue to block transit through the strait as long as the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports remained in effect.

Two gunboats from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard opened fire on a tanker transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the British military’s United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center said on Saturday. It reported the tanker and crew as safe, without identifying the vessel or its destination. TankerTrackers.com reported vessels were forced to turn around in the strait, including an Indian-flagged super tanker, after they were fired on by Iran.

Iran announced earlier Saturday it was reimposing restrictions on the strait in response to a U.S. blockade on Iranian shipping and ports. Iran has prevented vessels from crossing throughout the seven-week-long war, except for ones it authorizes.

Ebrahim Azizi, head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Commission, said that the strait was “returning to the status quo,” which he had earlier described as ships requiring Iranian naval authorization and toll payment before transiting.

The shift came a day after Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared the strait open while a 10-day trucewas announced between Israel and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militant groupin Lebanon. An end to Israel’s war with Hezbollah was a key demand of Iranian negotiators, who previously accused Israel of breaking last week’s ceasefire with strikes on Lebanon. Israel had said that deal did not cover Lebanon.

U.S. President Donald Trump first appeared to take a similar position on reopening the strait before later saying the American blockade“will remain in full force” regardless of what Iran does until a deal is reached, including about Iran’s nuclear program.

Even as the U.S.-Iran ceasefire appeared to hold, the back-and-forth over the strait — through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil typically passes — highlighted how easily it could unravel

Control over the strait has proven to be one Iran’s main points of leverage and prompted the United States to deploy forces and initiate a blockade on Iranian ports as part of an effort to force Iran to accept a Pakistan-brokered ceasefireto end almost seven weeks of warthat has raged between Israel, the U.S. and Iran.

A data firm, Kpler, said movement through the strait remained confined to corridors requiring Iran’s approval.

U.S. forces have sent 21 ships back to Iran since the blockade began on Monday, U.S. Central Command said on X.

Pakistan announces progress toward new deal

Despite the escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, Pakistani officials say the United States and Iran are still moving closer to a deal ahead of the April 22 ceasefire deadline.

The ceasefire in Lebanon could clear one major obstacleto an agreement. Speaking at a diplomatic forum in Antalya, Turkey, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the ceasefire in Lebanon was a positive sign, noting that fighting between Israel and Hezbollah had been a key sticking point before talks in Islamabad ended “very close” to an agreement last weekend.

Pakistan’s army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir visited Tehran, while Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Antalya, the military and Sharif’s office said. Pakistan is expected to host a second round of talks between Iran and the U.S. early next week.

Questions linger about Lebanon truce

Even though mediators were optimistic, it was unclear to what extent Hezbollah would abide by a truce it did not play a role in negotiating and which will leave Israeli troops occupying a stretch of southern Lebanon.

Trump said in another post that Israel is “prohibited” by the U.S. from further strikes on Lebanon and that “enough is enough” in the Israel-Hezbollah war.

The State Department said the prohibition applies only to offensive attacks and not to actions taken in self-defense.

Shortly before Trump’s post, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel agreed to the ceasefire in Lebanon “at the request of my friend President Trump,” but that the campaign against Hezbollah is not complete.

He claimed Israel had destroyed about 90% of Hezbollah’s missile and rocket stockpiles and added that Israeli forces “have not finished yet” with the dismantling of the group.

In Beirut, displaced families began moving toward southern Lebanonand Beirut’s southern suburbs despite warnings by officials not to return to their homes until it became clear whether the ceasefire would hold.

The Lebanese army and U.N. peacekeepers in southern Lebanon reported sporadic artillery shelling in some parts of southern Lebanon in the hours after the ceasefire took effect.

The war, which began with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Feb. 28, has killed at least 3,000 people in Iran, more than 2,290 in Lebanon, 23 in Israel and more than a dozen in Gulf Arab states. Thirteen U.S. service members have also been killed.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Regime change in Iran remains as necessary as ever

Published

on

As a former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, a Navy SEAL and a member of the National Security Council under former President George W. Bush, I spent decades helping oversee U.S. military operations across the Middle East under leaders including Jim Mattis and Lloyd Austinboth of whom later served this nation as Defense secretary. If I were advising President Donald Trump now, my message would be simple: Do not confuse a pause in hostilities with Iran — or even a limited, chaotic “opening” of the Strait of Hormuz — with a durable solution to the hostility between our nations.

The president’s position on Iran has, at times, appeared inconsistent.

The president’s position on Iran has, at times, appeared inconsistent. At times, he has suggested regime change in Iran as an objective. At others, his focus has shifted toward more limited goals, such as preventing a nuclear weaponreopening the Strait of Hormuz or securing concessions through negotiation. Those are important objectives but they are not, by themselves, a strategy for ending the threat posed by the regime in Tehran. A lasting resolution requires a clearly defined end state.

That kind of clarity has been missing in how the United States has communicated its objectives. Statements suggesting overwhelming or immediate destruction may project strength, but they can also create ambiguity about U.S. intent. Deterrence works best when it’s consistent and tied to clear strategic objectives.

That starts with being clear about the threat. Iran’s leadership has consistently pursued nuclear capability, advanced its missile program, expanded proxy networks across the region and actively supported U.S. adversaries. Those are still their goals, and those goals are not going away. Iran will continue pursuing them regardless of temporary pauses or agreements.

For nearly five decades, U.S. policy has focused on slowing Iran’s progress rather than stopping it outright. Sanctions, limited strikes and negotiated agreements have each had moments of success. But nothing yet has altered the regime’s direction. Instead, our actions have bought more time for Iran to rebuild and continue advancing under less immediate pressure. The current ceasefire fits that pattern. It will lower tensions in the short term, but it will not resolve the underlying conflict.

That raises a more fundamental question: What is the objective? If the goal is simply to manage the threat, then another ceasefire and another round of negotiations may suffice. But if the goal is a lasting resolution, then the U.S. must be clear about what that requires. As long as the current regime remains in power, Iran will continue pursuing the same policies it has for decades. That’s why regime change is not a secondary objective; it is the only path to a durable resolution.

But that does not mean a U.S. invasion of Iran. It means pursuing a different strategy: one that applies sustained economic and operational pressure to the regime’s core institutions, including measures such as targeted economic and maritime restrictions, one that sets clear and enforceable conditions in any negotiation and creates the conditions for internal change over time.

Iran’s nuclear infrastructure must be fully dismantled. Its stockpile of highly enriched uranium must be removed.

First, any negotiation must be anchored in non-negotiable outcomes. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure must be fully dismantled. Its stockpile of highly enriched uranium must be removed. Support for proxy militias and terrorist networks must end. The free flow of commerce through critical waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz must be guaranteed.

Second, pressure must extend beyond military targets to the core structures that sustain the regime’s power. That includes the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its financial networks and the internal security apparatus that enforces control at home.

Third, the U.S. should more clearly support Iranians. If regime change is to occur, then it will ultimately be driven from within. American policy can influence the conditions under which that change becomes possible: through information access, economic pressure and coordinated international isolation of the regime’s leadership.

The events of the past several weeks have already shifted the landscape. Iran’s leadership is under greater strain, its capabilities have been tested and its vulnerabilities are more visible than they have been in years. This is not a moment to reset the status quo on a regime that’s now operating from a weaker and more exposed position.

Trump was right to act on the threat Iran poses. But a ceasefire without a clearly defined political objective risks turning military gains into another temporary pause in a decades-long cycle. If the U.S. wants something more than a moment of calm, then it must be willing to define and pursue a different outcome.

There can be no lasting peace with the current regime in Tehran, which is why the current blockade is a step in the right direction. By applying sustained economic pressure without causing further destruction, or making sweeping financial concessions to Iran, it weakens the regime from within and moves us closer to the only outcome that can deliver lasting stability and peace.

Robert “Bob” Harward is a retired vice admiral, and former Deputy Commander of U.S. Central Command who served under General James Mattis helping oversee U.S. military operations across the Middle East. Harward lived in Tehran as a teenager and graduated from the Tehran American School

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending