Maddow talks about the 25 th amendment now.
Executive summary
Rachel Maddow and her show have repeatedly spotlighted the 25th Amendment as a constitutional avenue discussed during periods of acute concern about President Trump’s fitness for office, while urging caution that Section 4 is difficult to execute and that impeachment remains the more straightforward political remedy [1] [2] [3]. Coverage across Maddow’s segments and related MaddowBlog commentary has tracked contemporaneous reports that some cabinet members and other officials at times considered the option, even as key actors like Vice President Pence were reported not inclined to pursue it [4] [5] [6].
1. Why the 25th Amendment surfaced on the Maddow program and blog
Rachel Maddow’s coverage began circling the 25th Amendment early in Trump’s presidency as pundits and officials raised Section 4 — the involuntary removal provision — in response to what they described as alarming behavior, and Maddow’s platform explained the Amendment’s mechanics for viewers [1] [4]. Maddow’s team and affiliated MaddowBlog writers repeatedly framed the discussion as less about constitutional theory than about real-world stakes: reporting and commentary noted unnamed officials saying cabinet members had at least “preliminary discussions” of invoking the Amendment [2] [5].
2. What Maddow (and her contributors) actually argued on-air
Maddow’s segments and linked blog posts emphasized two linked points: first, that the vice president plus a majority of the cabinet can, under Article IV of the 25th Amendment, declare a president “unable to discharge the powers and duties” and transfer authority [1]; second, that despite those mechanics, the bar is high and political realities make the route unlikely compared with impeachment [2] [3]. Commentary from Maddow’s producers went further, repeating contemporaneous reporting that figures like Steve Bannon warned Trump the real risk was the 25th — and that in one report Trump asked “What’s that?” when told about the provision — facts Maddow used to underscore both the seriousness and the novelty of the discussion [4] [5].
3. Legal mechanics — straightforward text, complex process
Maddow’s explanations leaned on the plain language: the vice president and a majority of cabinet members can transfer power under Section 4, but Congress then plays a role if the president contests the move, creating a disputed, multi-step constitutional fight rather than an immediate removal [1] [2]. Her commentary and linked analysis repeatedly cautioned audiences that the Amendment governs succession and incapacity but was not designed as a partisan removal tool, a theme underscored across multiple Maddow blog pieces [1] [2].
4. The political reality: talk versus action inside the White House
Reporting cited by Maddow showed that “preliminary discussions” reportedly took place among some cabinet members and that outside actors urged action, yet players critical to any invocation were publicly cool to the idea; Vice President Pence was reported as not inclined to invoke the 25th despite explosive events that some argued justified it [5] [6]. Maddow and contributors highlighted that even if some aides or former officials urged use of the Amendment, the internal political will — including cabinet willingness to act and congressional follow-through — was the thorniest hurdle [2] [3].
5. Alternatives, skepticism, and the media’s role
Maddow’s coverage consistently presented the Amendment as a subject deserving attention but urged viewers to keep expectations low and focus on more traditional remedies like impeachment, while noting the media’s role in amplifying both serious debate and occasional hyperbole about constitutional emergency tools [3] [2]. Analysis on the show and blog acknowledged dissenting views — that the 25th Amendment was not intended for political disputes and that invoking it could set dangerous precedents — and framed those arguments as part of the reason why the option remained politically fraught [3] [1].
6. Bottom line: Maddow elevated the 25th Amendment debate but flagged practical limits
Across multiple segments and MaddowBlog pieces, Rachel Maddow elevated reporting that cabinet members at times discussed the 25th Amendment and relayed contemporaneous anecdotes about officials’ thinking, while consistently cautioning that the Amendment’s legal pathway is difficult and that impeachment or other political processes are more realistic options [5] [2] [3]. The coverage balanced explanation of constitutional mechanics with skepticism about the political feasibility of using Section 4, and it repeatedly cited contemporaneous news sourcing rather than asserting insider certainty [1] [4].