Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Iran have prompted renewed discussion among some Democratic lawmakers about the potential use of the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting president from office.

The debate, however, reflects more of a political signal than a viable constitutional pathway, given the significant institutional and partisan barriers involved.The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, was designed to clarify presidential succession and ensure continuity of executive authority.

It addressed longstanding gaps in the Constitution, particularly the absence of a clear mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. Historical data from the Congressional Research Service indicates that between 1789 and 1967, the vice presidency remained vacant for a cumulative total exceeding 37 years due to deaths, resignations, or succession.

The amendment comprises multiple sections, but current political discussion has centered on Section 4, which outlines a process for involuntarily transferring presidential powers if the president is deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office. Under this provision, the vice president, together with a majority of the cabinet or another congressionally designated body, can declare the president unfit.

If the president contests the determination, Congress must convene within 48 hours, and a two-thirds majority in both chambers is required to uphold the decision.While Section 3 of the amendment has been used in limited circumstances, primarily involving temporary medical incapacitation, Section 4 has never been invoked.

In 2021, then-President Joe Biden temporarily transferred authority during a medical procedure, illustrating the amendment’s routine procedural application rather than its more controversial provisions.

Calls to consider Section 4 have surfaced previously, most notably after the January 6 United States Capitol attack, when some Democratic leaders urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to initiate the process. Among those advocating such action were Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Those efforts did not advance, reflecting both political constraints and the high constitutional threshold required.The current discussion emerges in a similarly constrained environment. Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, making bipartisan cooperation essential for any attempt to proceed.

Analysts note that without substantial defections from within the president’s party, the two-thirds congressional requirement effectively renders the mechanism unattainable under present conditions.

Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, characterized the prospect as politically unworkable, citing the improbability of sufficient Republican support.

Public opinion data further underscores this dynamic, with approximately 82 percent of Republican voters expressing approval of Trump’s presidency, reinforcing party cohesion at a critical juncture.The political risks for Democrats are also significant.

Previous efforts to remove Trump through impeachment during his first term failed to secure conviction in the Senate, despite passage in the House. Those experiences continue to inform strategic calculations within the party, particularly as lawmakers prepare for upcoming midterm elections in which control of Congress remains contested.

Some Democratic legislators have indicated a preference to prioritize policy initiatives over procedural challenges to the presidency. Representative Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania stated that pursuing impeachment or similar measures at this stage may not represent the most effective use of legislative time, emphasizing instead issues such as economic policy, inflation, and childcare access.

Republican leaders have responded critically to the renewed focus on the amendment. House Speaker Mike Johnson described the discussion as politically motivated, arguing that it reflects a lack of substantive policy direction among Democratic lawmakers.

The exchange highlights the broader partisan divide that shapes both the feasibility and the framing of constitutional mechanisms in contemporary U.S. politics.

The renewed attention to the 25th Amendment illustrates its enduring relevance as a constitutional safeguard, while also underscoring the practical limitations of its most consequential provisions.

Although designed to address extraordinary circumstances, its application remains contingent on political consensus at the highest levels of government, a condition that appears absent in the current landscape.

Vice President Mike Pence, described Ashraf 3 as “the home of hope for a free and democratic Iran”

For more than four decades, the Mullahs’ regime has maintained that the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK) has ended and their office has closed. Even the title of “grouplet” has not yet removed the largest, most influential, and all-encompassing political organization of the last half-century from its literature. 

The bloodbath started after 500,000 people protested on June 20, 1980. Thousands of MEK members and supporters were put to death, and in one instance, more than 30,000 of its members were massacred in the summer of 1988. This group has carried out more than one hundred operations, both big and small, and it has held and continues to hold the most political prisoners in the last forty years. It has the most supporters among Iranians abroad and is able to host an annual gathering of 100,000 people abroad. 

However, it appears that the Supreme Leader of the regime did not comprehend where to hold chanting and mourning if these Mujahideen were defeated and had become a “grouplet”. What purpose do the countless movies, books, interviews, “documentaries”, magazines, and reports against the MEK serve if they are irrelevant? 

Absolute political systems and dictatorships, which depend on a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the ruling class and those close to them, have historically failed. A democratic political system was the only viable alternative to the new world. The Iranian people began the struggle for a democratic political structure with the Constitutional Revolution against the degenerate Qajar tyranny one hundred and sixteen years ago, before many democratic countries today, and they have achieved this goal at great cost to this day. 

Reza Khan (the father of the Shah) was the first and most significant domestic factor that caused the project to democratize Iran’s political system to be delayed. He established a new authoritarian monarchy that was harsher and more savage than the Qajar tyranny and completely buried every legal document that had survived as a constitution. While the Iranian society was yelling for independence and freedom in the streets after the Pahlavi dynasty was destroyed, it was forced to deal with a regime that was far more brutal and powerful than the previous dictatorship and even all previous governments. 

Khomeini’s regime was not a Pahlavi alternative because, in broad sense, if the monarchy was to be buried, it had to be different in form and content. However, the same elements of authoritarianism and dictatorship—and even the same kind of absolute government—brought with them a person who had some unreliable electoral systems. 

Given the characteristics of this regime, one must search for a political current that presents the opposing ideologies of the Shah and the Mullah. That is, a democratic republic. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which has for many years now presented and declared a clear plan for the establishment of a democratic republic based on the separation of religion and state and a clear demarcation with the Mullah and Shah, is the only organization able to be in such position. No other political party or current has, as of yet, demonstrated such a history. 

The NCRI has been a political organization with regular administrative and legal frameworks for more than 40 years. In fact, throughout Iran’s history, it has been the longest-lasting political coalition to take the shape of a reliable and powerful organization. Every individual or movement, regardless of the number of its supporters or its social base, has the same right to vote as the other council members in this political organization, which is completely democratic. 

For decades following the overthrow of the Mullahs regime, the council has been presenting a specific plan for the establishment of a democratic republic, which is now presented in the form of a 10-point plan by Ms. Rajavi, the president-elect and acting head of state. It is acknowledged throughout the world as Iran’s modern and democratic program following the mullah regime. 

One of the most crucial conditions for a political alternative, and the reason the regime intends to boycott it, is the support that the reactionary-authoritarian-colonial company of the Shah and the Mullah are attempting to obscure and disregard. Political and government officials from both Europe and the United States, as well as parliamentary delegations from both continents, provide this support. 

Another example is the visit by Mike Pence, the 48th Vice President of the United States, and his meeting with Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, at Ashraf 3, the MEK headquarters, in the afternoon of June 23, 2022. 

In his speech to the gathering of MEK members at Ashraf 3, 1,000 of whom were former political prisoners during the monarchy dictatorship and also during the current authoritarian regime, Vice President Mike Pence, described Ashraf 3 as “the home of hope for a free and democratic Iran”. He added, “I have traveled more than 5,000 miles from my home in Indiana to be here today because we share a common cause….I can say with certainty that the American people support your goal of establishing a secular, democratic, non-nuclear Iranian republic that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed”.

On May 16, 2022, former US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, also visited Ashraf 3 and met with Mrs. Maryam Rajavi.

Mr. Pompeo said, “A serious missing factor in U.S. policy towards Iran has been the lack of political support for the organized opposition… Now, to correct the Iran policy, no matter who is in the White House, it is a necessity for the U.S. administration to reach out to the Iranian Resistance and take advantage of its tremendous capabilities. Ashraf 3 is one such place to focus on.

Mr. Pompeo also spoke about the leadership capabilities of the Iranian Resistance which he said has “a real political voice in Washington and around the world” and said, “I’d also like to recognize President-elect Maryam Rajavi. Under her leadership, the National Council of Resistance of Iran is laying the groundwork for a free, sovereign, and democratic republic in Iran.” 

Both the removal of the regime and the preservation of the accomplishments of the new revolution are ensured by the existence of the Resistance units and the National Liberation Army of Iran, which has a regular, principled, and steely organization.

Saeed Abed is an expert on Iran and the Middle East. He is a Human Rights Activist, belonging to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) Foreign Affairs Committee.

It seems that Mike Pence’s full support for the Iranian people’s quest for freedom and democracy, led by the People’s Mujahedin of Iran and Maryam Rajavi.

On Thursday, October 28, supporters of the People’s Mujahidin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) held a large conference in Washington DC. The conference, titled, “2021 Free Iran Summit: Holding Ebrahim Raisi Accountable for Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide, Regional Meddling, and Nuclear Defiance,”

This conference, however, was significantly different from similar meetings that were previously held in the United States. In this ever-important gathering, in addition to distinguished American personalities such as Senator Joe Lieberman, US Vice President candidate (2000), Senator Torricelli, U.S. Senator (1997-2003), Honorable Judge Michael Mukasey, 81st U.S. Attorney General, General James Conway, the former commander of the US Marine Marines, etc., who have already attended such meetings many times in the past and expressed their support for the MEK and the NCRI. The presence of former Vice President Mike Pence, at the meeting, magnified the importance of this conference.

In his speech, Vice-President Mike Pence, who has rarely appeared in public since the November election, stated that he was attending the meeting as his first opportunity after leaving office to talk in detail about Iran. He mentioned that although he was no longer talking as part of the U.S. government, he assured the audience that he was expressing the views and longings of the tens of millions of Americans who strongly support the establishment of a democratic republic, based on the separation of religion and state in Iran.

He continued his speech by condemning Ebrahim Raisi and calling for his trial for crimes against humanity and for the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners in 1988, saying that the election of Ebrahim Raisi as president of the Iranian regime was a sign that the regime is in a state of desperation and weakness.

All indications are that the authoritarian regime in Iran knows that the days of its life are numbered, but one of the great lies that the mullahs are trying to convince the world is that there is no alternative to them, and therefore the current situation must be accepted. In response, Vice-President Mike Pence mentioned that on the contrary, there is an alternative, and it is well organized and well-prepared. This alternative has all the competencies and enjoys the support of the Iranian people. The name of this alternative is MEK, meaning the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran.

Pence said the organization is committed to freedom and human rights for all Iranians and is led by a great woman named Maryam Rajavi, who inspires the world. Her ten-point plan for Iran’s future guarantees freedom of expression. It also establishes freedom of assembly and freedom for all Iranians to elect their own leaders and coexist peacefully with all independent countries in the region.

It seems that Mike Pence’s full support for the Iranian people’s quest for freedom and democracy, led by the People’s Mujahedin of Iran and Maryam Rajavi, reflects a profound understanding and recognition of the vulnerability and unpopularity of the regime in Tehran, on the one hand, and the presence and existence of a viable alternative to the mullahs’ regime, on the other hand, among the politician and media in the United States.

It is worth mentioning that last July, the former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, participated in an online conference and spoke at a three-day meeting organized by pro-resistance Iranian American communities in the US. In his speech,

Secretary Pompeo also expressed his support for the resistance of the Iranian people and pointed out that the time for the possible establishment of another monarchy in Iran is over.

Prior to Secretary Pompeo’s speech at the online conference, dozens of senators and members of Congress from both political parties in America, as well as a large number of American generals, expressed their full support for the establishment of a democratic republic led under Ms. Maryam Rajavi’s leadership.

In Iran, however, the reaction of the regime media to Vice-president Pence’s speech was very hostile, as expected. Almost all the regime’s media covered this meeting and Mike Pence’s presence and his support of MEK and Ms. Rajavi and their opposition to the JCPOA agreement employing, of course, using their own language and culture!

Because, on one hand, they do not want to spoil the morale of their precarious forces by publishing such news of their dire situation, and on the other hand, they are worried that under the pressure of the opposers of JCPOA, such as Pence and Pompeo, the US government and the British, France And Germany, that want to continue negotiations and reach a new agreement, conclude that negotiations are useless and a waste of time and only buys time for the Iranian regime to advance its nuclear program to acquire a bomb, and consequently start an alternative plan B.

That is, to refer Iran’s nuclear case to the UN Security Council, re-imposing all UN sanctions, and implementing chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which authorizes military operations against the regime’s nuclear facilities, which will certainly accelerate the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime.

Cyrus Yaqubi is a Research Analyst and Iranian Foreign Affairs Commentator investigating the social issues and economy of the Middle East countries in general and Iran in particular.