Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has set off a political firestorm by publicly demanding the invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office, thrusting the constitutional provision into the national spotlight once again. The call, made on October 1, 2025, came after President Trump’s controversial remarks at Quantico, Virginia, where he suggested using cities like Chicago as “training grounds for our military” and referred to threats from “the enemy within.” According to The Independent and IBTimes UK, Pritzker’s comments mark the first time a sitting governor has openly urged Trump’s removal through the 25th Amendment during his second term.
“It appears that Donald Trump not only has dementia set in, but he’s copying tactics of Vladimir Putin,” Pritzker declared at a press conference, as reported by IBTimes UK. “Sending troops into cities, thinking that that’s some sort of proving ground for war, or that indeed there’s some sort of internal war going on in the United States, is just, frankly, inane and I’m concerned for his health. There is something genuinely wrong with this man, and the 25th Amendment ought to be invoked.”
Pritzker’s comments quickly reverberated through political circles, drawing both support and condemnation. Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) echoed the governor’s call on social media, simply posting “25TH AMENDMENT!” in response to Trump’s Quantico address, according to The Fulcrum. Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich also weighed in, writing in an October 1 editorial that Trump is “showing growing signs of dementia” and is “increasingly unhinged.” Reich cited Trump’s promotion of an AI-generated video about magical healing beds and his decision to deploy troops to Portland based on outdated footage as evidence of cognitive decline. “He’s 79 years old with a family history of dementia. He could well be going nuts,” Reich warned.
For many Democratic leaders and critics, the president’s rhetoric has crossed a dangerous line. “When a sitting president refers to U.S. cities as ‘training grounds for our military,’ we are no longer debating policy—we are confronting a crisis of fitness,” wrote Hugo Balta, executive editor of The Fulcrum. Pritzker’s call, he argued, is “not only justified, it’s overdue.”
The White House, however, was quick to dismiss Pritzker’s remarks. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told The Independent, “Pritzker is a slob of a governor” and “it appears he’s particularly hangry today based on his unhinged ramblings.” Jackson continued, “The only reason anyone has even heard of him is because he’s failed his constituents so spectacularly that the raging crime crisis and dangerous sanctuary city status of Chicago is national news. President Trump is deeply concerned with the safety and security of all Americans, including those in Chicago — and he’s stepping in where J.B. failed. J.B., here’s a tip: eat a snickers; you’re not you when you’re hungry (which is all the time).”
Military veterans and former defense officials were similarly unsettled by Trump’s speech. Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Forces Committee, called the event “an expensive, dangerous dereliction of leadership by the Trump administration.” Air Force veteran Gretchen Klingler, director of Veterans for American Ideas at Human Rights First, described the president’s remarks as “authoritarian and un-American.” Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey went even further, labeling the address “one of the most bizarre, unsettling events I’ve ever encountered,” and calling Trump “incoherent, exhausted and… at times stupid.”
The 25th Amendment, ratified on February 10, 1967, was born out of the chaos following President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Its purpose was to clarify the rules of presidential succession and incapacity, which had previously left the nation vulnerable to uncertainty and confusion. Section 4 of the amendment, the most controversial and never-invoked provision, allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” If such a declaration is made, the vice president immediately becomes acting president. However, the president can contest the decision, and Congress then has 21 days to resolve the matter, requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers to uphold the removal.
Despite the recent uproar, the political and constitutional hurdles to actually removing Trump are immense. As IBTimes UK points out, “Without the vice president’s participation, the process cannot even begin—and there’s no indication Vice President JD Vance would consider such action against the president who selected him.” Even if Vance and a Cabinet majority acted, the requirement of a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate makes removal a near impossibility in a polarized Congress.
History shows just how rarely the amendment has been used for anything beyond temporary medical transfers of power. Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden have all briefly ceded authority to their vice presidents during medical procedures. But Section 4, intended for cases of incapacity, has never been invoked to permanently remove a sitting president. In 1987, some Reagan staffers considered it, but ultimately decided he was fit for office. After the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, Democrats urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to invoke it against Trump, but Pence refused, warning it would “set a terrible precedent.”
In today’s climate, calls to invoke the 25th Amendment have become almost routine—leveled by both parties against presidents they oppose. During Biden’s presidency, Republican lawmakers and even then-candidate JD Vance urged his Cabinet to remove him over alleged cognitive decline. Trump himself has weaponized the amendment rhetorically, warning that “the 25th Amendment is of zero risk to me, but will come back to haunt Joe Biden and the Biden administration.”
Yet, as IBTimes UK and The Independent both highlight, the amendment is not a partisan tool but a constitutional safeguard—designed for extraordinary circumstances, not political convenience. Its high threshold ensures that only in the most extreme, broadly recognized cases of incapacity can a president be removed without an election.
Governor Pritzker’s dramatic intervention, while unprecedented, is likely to remain symbolic given the current political landscape. But it has reignited a national debate about presidential fitness, the boundaries of executive power, and the mechanisms for holding leaders accountable. As the controversy swirls, the 25th Amendment stands as both a shield against true incapacity and a reminder of the formidable barriers to removing a sitting president—no matter how heated the rhetoric becomes.
For now, the fate of President Trump rests not in the hands of his critics, but in the constitutional checks and balances that have weathered more than a few storms in American history.
