Calls for Trump’s removal grow over his erratic Iran posts. Can the president be ousted?

A political storm is brewing in Washington as United States President Donald Trump faces mounting calls for removal from office following his handling of the escalating Iran crisis.

Even after Trump announced a last-minute ceasefire with Iran, the backlash has continued to grow, with dozens of lawmakers — primarily Democrats — arguing that the president’s conduct has crossed a line that demands action.

How Trump's threats resulted in calls of removal

As the standoff between Washington and Tehran over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a vital global shipping route, reached boiling point. The Trump administration had issued a deadline for Iran to reopen the passage.

On Tuesday morning, Trump escalated the situation through a post on Truth Social, warning that if Iran failed to comply, “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will.”

More from Explainers

How all is not well in the Kingdom of Donald Trump

Iran has caught Trump in a trap; the US President now must harvest the fruits of his folly

The remark drew immediate condemnation from critics, who argued that it signalled a willingness to contemplate catastrophic military action. The warning followed earlier threats over the preceding days, including references to potential strikes on Iranian infrastructure such as bridges and power plants.

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F**kin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell,” Trump said on Truth Social.

Some international observers suggested that such actions could violate international humanitarian law and potentially constitute war crimes.

Despite the heightened rhetoric, Trump announced on Tuesday that he had agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The decision came just over an hour before the deadline he had set for Tehran.

While the announcement temporarily reduced fears of immediate escalation, it did little to ease the political backlash at home. Several lawmakers argued that the ceasefire did not negate the severity of the earlier threats.

US Representative Melanie Stansbury captured this sentiment in a widely shared post, stating, “Just because a President announces he's agreed to a two week ceasefire moments before he threatened to commit war crimes, does not mean he is suddenly fit to serve.”

How Democrats have been pushing for Trump's impeachment or removal

Lawmakers across the party called for Trump to be either impeached or removed from office using constitutional provisions designed to address presidential misconduct or incapacity.

By Tuesday evening, more than 85 House Democrats had publicly supported some form of removal effort. These included senior figures and influential voices within the party, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

However, the bulk of support came from the progressive wing, while many moderates and lawmakers from competitive districts focused instead on calls for a vote to limit presidential war powers.

US Representative John Larson moved quickly to formalise the push by introducing articles of impeachment, citing the Iran crisis alongside other alleged violations.

At the same time, US Representative Yassamin Ansari indicated plans to pursue impeachment proceedings against US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth for his role in the conflict.

Other lawmakers directed their efforts toward the 25th Amendment. Representatives Shri Thanedar and Jasmine Crockett sent letters to US Vice President JD Vance and members of the Cabinet, urging them to declare Trump unfit for office.

US Representative Diana DeGette wrote, “Donald Trump is openly threatening war crimes against the entirety of Iranian civilization. 25th Amendment proceedings must begin immediately, but if the Cabinet is too cowardly, the House should begin the impeachment process now.”

Similarly, US Senator Ed Markey emphasised the urgency of congressional action, stating: “The House must bring up impeachment articles, and the Senate needs to remove a president who wants to commit war crimes. We cannot sit idly by as Donald Trump threatens to end an entire civilization.”

Markey later added, “I'm glad there is a reported ceasefire deal with Iran. But ... Donald Trump can't simply threaten war crimes with impunity. Congress needs to get back in session now to stop this war and remove Donald Trump.”

Other Democrats echoed these concerns in stark terms. US Representative Mark Pocan declared, “25th Amendment RIGHT NOW! Trump is too unhinged, dangerous, and deranged to have the nuclear codes!”

US Representative Rashida Tlaib described the president as a “war criminal” and said, “It’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment. This maniac should be removed from office.”

US Representative Ayanna Pressley warned of the broader consequences, stating, “This is a horrifying threat of genocidal war crimes. The lives of civilians and service members alike are at stake here. Congress must stop this war and remove Trump from the White House.”

Several other Democrats — including Summer Lee, Andrea Salinas, and Bonnie Watson Coleman — also called for Trump’s removal, though not all specified whether impeachment or the 25th Amendment should be used.

At the leadership level, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stopped short of calling for removal but urged Republicans to intervene, saying, “It’s time for every single Republican to put patriotic duty over party and stop the madness.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X, "This is an extremely sick person."

"Each Republican who refuses to join us in voting against this wanton war of choice owns every consequence of whatever the hell this is."

How White House has responded

The White House rejected the criticism, framing it as politically motivated.

Spokesperson Davis Ingle dismissed the calls for removal, saying, “Democrats have been talking about removing President Trump since before he was even sworn into office. The Democrats in Congress are deranged, weak, and ineffective, which is why their approval ratings are at historic lows.”

This response reflects a broader Republican argument that the push for impeachment or removal is less about the Iran crisis itself and more about long-standing opposition to Trump’s presidency.

Indeed, some Democrats acknowledged that the efforts are unlikely to succeed in the current political environment. Without substantial Republican backing, neither impeachment nor invocation of the 25th Amendment is considered viable.

How the 25th Amendment works

The 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified in 1967 following the assassination of then-US President John F Kennedy, was designed to clarify procedures for presidential succession and address situations in which a president might be unable to perform their duties.

The amendment contains four sections. The first establishes that the vice president becomes president in the event of death, resignation, or removal.

The second allows for the appointment of a new vice president if that office becomes vacant. The third permits a president to temporarily transfer power voluntarily, typically for medical reasons.

The fourth section, which is at the centre of current discussions, provides a mechanism for involuntary transfer of power.

Under this provision, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can declare that the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. In such a case, the vice president immediately assumes the role of acting president.

However, the process becomes more complex if the president contests the declaration. In that scenario, Congress must decide the issue, with a two-thirds majority required in both the House and Senate to keep the vice president in charge.

The 25th Amendment does not permanently remove a president from office. Instead, it temporarily transfers authority while the president remains in position. This distinguishes it from impeachment, which is a punitive process that can lead to removal and disqualification from future office.

Despite its significance, Section 4 has never been invoked in US history. Its use is widely considered a last resort, intended for situations involving clear physical or mental incapacity rather than political disputes.

However Section 1 and 2 have been invoked before during the Nixon administration. When VP Spiro Agnew resigned, Gerald Ford was appointed under Section 2. When Nixon resigned, Ford became President under Section 1, and then appointed Nelson Rockefeller as VP under Section 2.

Section 3 was invoked by Ronald Reagan (once) and George W Bush (twice) for planned medical procedures. Most recently, President Joe Biden temporarily transferred power to Vice President Kamala Harris in 2021 while undergoing a routine colonoscopy.

How impeachment is a familiar but difficult path

Impeachment represents the other primary mechanism being discussed. Under the US Constitution, the House of Representatives can impeach a president by a simple majority vote, after which the Senate conducts a trial.

A two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to convict and remove the president. Trump is already familiar with this process, having been impeached twice during his previous term but acquitted on both occasions.

This history highlights the difficulty of achieving removal, particularly in a politically divided Congress. In the current scenario, the likelihood of securing the necessary votes remains low.

Republicans control enough seats to block both impeachment and conviction, making Democratic efforts largely symbolic at this stage. But if Republicans lose control of the House in upcoming midterm elections, another impeachment effort could follow.

How Republicans have reacted to Trump's threats

Some lawmakers have framed Trump’s approach as a necessary response to Iran’s actions. US Representative Dan Meuser described the moment as “very historic,” pointing to Iran’s long-standing status as an adversary.

US Representative Pete Sessions argued that the United States must “deter aggression, defend our interests, and lead with strength and purpose.”

US Senator Lindsey Graham also expressed support, stating that Trump “earnestly seeks a diplomatic solution” and has the ability to deal effectively with difficult counterparts.

At the same time, a small number of Republicans voiced concern. US Senator Lisa Murkowski criticised Trump’s rhetoric, calling it “an affront to the ideals our nation has sought to uphold and promote around the world for nearly 250 years.”

She warned that such statements could undermine the United States’ global standing and put Americans at risk. US Representative Nathaniel Moran similarly emphasised the importance of protecting civilian lives, arguing that moral considerations must remain central even in times of conflict.

In a notable development, Marjorie Taylor Greene — a former ally of Trump — reportedly called for his removal, describing the president’s comments as “evil and madness.” Her stance highlights emerging fractures within Republican ranks, even if they remain limited.

What about the US president's powers during 'war'

Some Democrats, particularly those from more moderate factions, have focused on legislative measures to limit Trump’s authority to conduct military operations without congressional approval.

Plans are underway to introduce a resolution aimed at curbing the president’s ability to escalate the conflict with Iran.

Vance has defended the administration’s stance, stating that “We've got tools in our toolkit that we so far haven't decided to use.” His remarks suggest that the White House continues to keep multiple options on the table, even as it pursues a temporary ceasefire.

Also Watch:

With inputs from agencies