Calls to invoke the 25th Amendment have become a kind of political reflex — trotted out whenever opponents of a sitting president decide that sharp rhetoric, unconventional behavior, or controversial decision-making must somehow amount to incapacity. With Donald Trump, this refrain has reached predictable levels: he’s “unfit” or “unstable,” critics say, and therefore should be removed not through elections or even impeachment, but via the Constitution’s emergency mechanism for presidential disability. That argument fundamentally misunderstands what the 25th Amendment is and why it exists. Ratified in 1967 in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the 25th Amendment was designed to address a narrow but serious problem: what happens when a president is incapable of exercising the powers of the office? Section 4, the most discussed (and most misunderstood) provision — and one that has never been invoked — allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Upon transmitting that declaration to Congress, the vice president immediately assumes the role of acting president. Crucially, the amendment anticipates disagreement. If the president contests the declaration, Congress must decide the issue, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses to sustain the vice president’s judgment. That’s an extraordinarily high bar, reflecting the gravity of sidelining a duly elected president without impeachment. The text is clear: the concern is inability and incapacity, not unpopularity or controversy. It’s a mechanism for dealing with presidents who cannot function, not those whose personalities provoke opposition. Historical practice reinforces this understanding. The 25th Amendment has been invoked several times — under Section 3, which allows voluntary delegation of authority — in cases involving clear, temporary incapacity. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan had surgery for colon cancer and transferred power to Vice President George H.W. Bush for about eight hours. President George W. Bush invoked Section 3 twice, in 2002 and 2007, when he underwent colonoscopies requiring anesthesia. President Joe Biden did the same thing in 2021. In these cases, the respective vice presidents briefly served as “acting” president. They were textbook examples of the 25th Amendment’s purpose: a president temporarily unable to perform his duties due to a known, concrete medical condition. Even outside formal invocation, the amendment’s logic reflects lessons from earlier constitutional crises. Woodrow Wilson, after suffering a debilitating stroke in 1919, remained president in name only while his wife and aides effectively ran the executive branch. That episode — along with concerns raised after President Dwight Eisenhower’s heart attack — led to calls for constitutional reform, which Kennedy’s assassination finally triggered. In other words, this provision exists precisely because there have been presidents who were genuinely unable to govern due to physical or cognitive impairment. It’s not a catch-all remedy for political dissatisfaction. Which brings us to Donald Trump. One can oppose his policies, criticize his rhetoric, or argue that he shouldn’t be president. The Constitution provides a mechanism for that: elections. It also provides another mechanism for serious misconduct: impeachment. But outrage over a president’s behavior can’t magically transform into constitutional “inability.” Trump’s critics often claim that he’s erratic or mentally unstable. But these are political assertions, not medical diagnoses. More importantly, they’re not evidence of incapacity as the 25th Amendment contemplates it. There’s no indication that Trump is unable to understand his role, make decisions, or carry out the basic functions of the presidency. Indeed, whatever one thinks of his style, he’s behaving much as he did during his first term — hardly evidence of a sudden, disqualifying decline. The contrast with genuinely incapacitated presidents is stark. Wilson was physically and neurologically impaired to the point of being unable to govern. More recently, Biden’s cognitive decline prompted debate precisely because it raised questions about whether he could perform the job’s demands. Those are the kinds of situations the 25th Amendment is meant to address: actual inability, not partisan disgust. To stretch the amendment to cover unconventional leadership would be to weaponize it, turning a safeguard for emergencies into a tool for political maneuvering. That would not only distort the Constitution but also set a dangerous precedent, inviting future cabinets and vice presidents to attempt end-runs around elections whenever tensions run high. Trump’s opponents are entirely within their rights to argue that he is unfit for office. They can make that case to Congress and ultimately to voters. They can even continue to deploy the language of “craziness” in the rough-and-tumble of political debate. But they shouldn’t pretend that such rhetoric satisfies the legal standard for removing a president under the 25th Amendment. * * * Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, contributing editor of City Journal, senior counsel to Burke Law Group, PLLC, and author, most recently, of Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites. He also writes the Shapiro’s Gavel newsletter.

The Department of Homeland Security confirmed on Sunday that a federal investigation into Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) included reports that he’d hired — and then lied about — a Brazilian nanny who was living in the United States illegally. POLITICO’s Dan Lippman broke the story, reporting on Sunday that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had referred allegations to law enforcement at DHS — and the department issued a response from the official X account. “USCIS has been collecting information on the allegations involving Congressman Eric Swalwell hiring of a Brazilian national as a nanny without lawful work authorization. @USCIS has referred this matter to DHS law enforcement for investigation. No one is above the law, including a member of Congress,” the post read. USCIS has been collecting information on the allegations involving Congressman Eric Swalwell hiring of a Brazilian national as a nanny without lawful work authorization.@USCIS has referred this matter to DHS law enforcement for investigation. No one is above the law, including… https://t.co/yFE4DeI3aC — Homeland Security (@DHSgov) April 12, 2026 The news comes as multiple other investigations are already in play — and as the California congressman and gubernatorial candidate is also facing several accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior, ranging from unwanted attention to at least one claim of rape from a former staffer. The Manhattan district attorney opened an investigation into Swalwell on Saturday after learning that on of the women accusing him of sexual misconduct lived in New York. Weeks earlier, the Justice Department had opened an unrelated investigation into the gubernatorial hopeful, alleging mortgage fraud. Since the accusations began to drop on Friday, Swalwell’s friends and colleagues have quickly deserted him. Democrats in Congress withdrew their support for his gubernatorial run, withdrawing their endorsements publicly and calling on him to drop out of the race. Some took that a step further and called on him to resign his congressional seat – and a few have said that, if given the opportunity, they would cast a vote to expel him from the legislative body. His employees followed, with a group of senior staffers from both his congressional office and his gubernatorial campaign office issuing a joint memo and resigning en masse. They also called on voters to withdraw support from Swalwell. Swalwell has denied the accusations, calling them “flat false” and voting to fight back with everything that he has.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) announced on Sunday evening, amid multiple accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior and at least one accusation of rape, that he was suspending his campaign for the California governorship. “I am suspending my campaign for Governor,” Swalwell announced in an X post. “To my family, staff, friends, and supporters, I am deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past. I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made — but that’s my fight, not a campaign’s.” I am suspending my campaign for Governor. To my family, staff, friends, and supporters, I am deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past. I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made — but that’s my fight, not a campaign’s. — Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) April 13, 2026 Swalwell once again declared his innocence — as he had one day prior in a video announcing his plan to fight the accusations against him, which he described as “flat false.” Since Friday, Swalwell has been hit with several accusations ranging from inappropriate and sexually charged messages to at least one accusation of rape. In the time elapsed since the first accusations were publicly reported, a number of elected Democrats have withdrawn their support for his gubernatorial campaign and have called for him to bow out of the race. Others have taken that a step further and have suggested that he also resign his congressional seat — and some have said that they would, should the opportunity arise, vote to expel him from Congress. The California congressman’s announcement comes as several other investigations are already underway — including a DHS investigation into reports that he hired a Brazilian nanny and then lied about the fact that she was living in the United States illegally. His employees followed suit, with a group of senior staffers from both his congressional office and his gubernatorial campaign office issuing a joint memo on Saturday and resigning en masse. They withdrew all support from Swalwell and promised to stand with their former colleagues who had come forward to accuse him — and they also  called on voters to withdraw support from Swalwell.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close ally of President Donald Trump, conceded defeat on Sunday to opposition leader and head of the center-right Tisza party, Péter Magyar. Orbán, leader of the Fidesz party, has held the nation’s top office for 16 years. With the votes nearly all counted by Sunday afternoon, the Tisza Party looked poised to also deliver a two-thirds majority in parliament — which is likely to prompt a dramatic shift in Hungary’s relationship with the European Union. The E.U. and Orbán have often been at odds — and Magyar has already declared his intent to work more closely with the governing body than his predecessor did. “Hungarians said ‘yes’ to Europe,” Magyar said. “Hungary is again going to be a very strong ally of the European Union and NATO.” Magyar boasted that his party had won some 3.3 million votes — the largest number for any one political party in Hungary’s history: “Together we replaced the Orbán regime, together we liberated Hungary. We took our country back.” Speaking to a large crowd in Budapest, Magyar declared that his support was so expansive that his voters could be seen “from the moon and every window in Hungary … Never in the history of democratic Hungary, have so many people voted, and no other party has ever received such a big mandate.” Magyar, according to The Washington Post, was poised to see his party take 138 seats in the 199-seat parliament. In contrast, Orbán’s party is likely to only take 55. “Today we have worked a miracle, Hungary has written history,” Magyar said. “Today truth triumphed over lies. Today Hungarians didn’t ask the question what can the country do for them but what can they do for the country.” President Donald Trump’s administration has had a good relationship with Orbán, and the president himself offered an endorsement via video, and Vice President JD Vance traveled to Hungary to campaign alongside Orbán in recent weeks. “We hope you will vote for independent thinking and for someone who stands for Hungary First,” Donald Trump Jr. posted on X Sunday morning. “We hope you will vote for my father’s friend and ally.” Orbán was quick to concede the race as the vote tallies came in, saying that the results were “clear” as he delivered brief remarks to supporters.

WASHINGTON — The marathon negotiations between the United States and Iran in Pakistan didn’t lead to a peace deal, but American leadership came away with one major conclusion: Iran is delusional about its standing in negotiations. Vice President JD Vance will soon arrive back in Washington, and President Donald Trump has upped the ante declaring a complete blockade of the Straight of Hormuz. The negotiations helped the United States understand just how little Iran understood their situation, U.S. officials told The Daily Wire. Iran failed to recognize the reality of the situation on the ground, the officials say, and has not come to terms with the fact that its inability to ever have a nuclear weapon is a primary American objective. A U.S. official said that Vance entered the negotiations well-aware that the United States and Iran had hardly interacted with one another for half a century. Vance went into the 21 hours of negotiations with plans to test the counterparties and assess what they believed their situation was. Vance probed their vulnerabilities, and Trump is now testing those vulnerabilities, the official said, and the world will see whether the Iranians recognize reality. After Vance’s departure, Trump announced that the United Staes would blockade the Strait because Iran had refused to commit to abandoning its nuclear program. The president shared that he had been fully briefed by the vice president, and said that the U.S. Navy would begin its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and targeting vessels that attempt to enter or exit, as well as identify vessels that have paid what he described as “illegal” tolls to Iran. “The meeting with Iran began early in the morning, and lasted throughout the night — Close to 20 hours. I could go into great detail, and talk about much that has been gotten but, there is only one thing that matters — IRAN IS UNWILLING TO GIVE UP ITS NUCLEAR AMBITIONS,” the president said. “In many ways, the points that were agreed to are better than us continuing our Military Operations to conclusion, but all of those points don’t matter compared to allowing Nuclear Power to be in the hands of such volatile, difficult, unpredictable people.” One of the vice president’s main goals, heading into the talks, was for both the United States and Iran to get to a mutual understanding on each country’s objectives and their “negotiating space,” the first U.S. official explained. Though the conversations were tough, the official said, by the end, the negotiators had completed a productive exchange of proposals. It became clear from the outset that the Iranians weren’t grasping the core objective of the United States: any deal would have to center on the fact that Iran can not ever obtain a nuclear weapon. Vance corrected this misunderstanding during the deliberations, the official shared, and when the vice president left Islamabad, he had offered Iran the best and final offer that worked for both parties. US Vice President JD Vance (L) talks to Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshall Asim Munir (R) and Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar (C) before boarding Air Force Two after attending talks on Iran in Islamabad on April 12, 2026. (Photo by Jacquelyn MARTIN / POOL / AFP via Getty Images) Vance also believed that deal should be acceptable to the Iranians and said publicly that he hopes they will accept it. Another key point of the weekend negotiations: Vance probed the Iranian assessment of their own position and discovered that they fundamentally misunderstood their own position walking into the negotiations. That was why the vice president left Islamabad after he gave that final offer: if the Iranians believe they have leverage that they do not have, the official said, no deal is achievable. And before they are ready to entertain a serious offer, the Iranians need to recognize that the realities on the ground in Iran do not match their assumptions heading into the negotiations. “The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon,” Vance told reporters as he departed Pakistan. “That is the core goal of the president of the United States. And that’s what we’ve tried to achieve through these negotiations.” “We leave here, and we leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer. We’ll see if the Iranians accept it.” The White House national security team has come up with a plan, in consultation with the president, intended to break the Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz and, at the same time, challenge the idea that the Strait of Hormuz can distract from the main issue: Iran’s nuclear program. The vice president is hopeful that Iran recognizes that the deal they have been presented is in both parties’ interest, the official said. A separate U.S. official outlined the United States red lines to The Daily Wire: Iran must end all uranium enrichment, dismantle all major nuclear enrichment facilities, retrieve highly enriched uranium, accept a broader peace, security and de-escalation framework that includes regional allies, end funding for the terrorist proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and fully open the Strait of Hormuz, charging no tolls for passage. There is a deal still on the table, the U.S. official noted, and the vice president’s statement emphasized that. It now remains up to the Iranians whether or not they accept it.