Was the 25th amendment invoked in the past 2 days

1. Public pressure rose, but pressure is not invocation

Several media reports and public figures called for the 25th Amendment to be used against President Trump after recent remarks and a disclosed message about Greenland, with Senator Ed Markey explicitly urging invocation on social media ^{[1] [2]}. Newsweek, TIME and other outlets chronicled growing calls and analysis about the legal and political feasibility of such a move ^{[4] [2]}. Those calls are political speech and commentary; none of those sources reports the procedural, written steps that would constitute an actual invocation under the Constitution ^{[1] [4]}.

2. What constitutional invocation would legally look like — and why reporters would note it

The Constitution and authoritative legal summaries make clear that an invocation under Section 4 requires the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (the Cabinet) to transmit a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House stating that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office; that written transmission is the operative act that makes the Vice President acting President for up to four days unless Congress acts ^{[3] [6]}. Reporting that would constitute an invocation would therefore specifically describe such written submissions and, if contested, the ensuing congressional procedures — language not present in the materials provided ^{[3] [6]}.

3. Historical context and why the idea is politically charged

Calls to use the amendment against an unpopular or controversial president are not new: after January 6, 2021 similar suggestions surfaced and were widely covered as political alternatives to impeachment, underscoring the 25th’s rare and fraught standing in political discourse ^{[7] [8]}. Commentators and legal analysts highlight that an actual Cabinet-backed invocation would be unprecedented in modern practice and politically explosive, which helps explain why many write about invoking it even when the practical likelihood of success is low ^{[9] [5]}.

4. Reporting gap: no source documents a completed invocation in the timeframe

None of the supplied sources claims that the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet have sent the required written declaration to congressional leaders or that the President invoked Section 3; the pieces instead discuss proposals, calls to action, and legal explanation ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Given the constitutional mechanics, journalists and official channels would be expected to cite the text of any written transmission or official notice — an absence that, based on the material provided, indicates the amendment was not invoked in the last two days ^{[3] [6]}.

5. Alternative viewpoints and limitations of the record

Advocates for invocation argue the amendment is a constitutional safety valve for moments when the President is unfit; critics say using it for political disagreements weaponizes an emergency tool and could set dangerous precedents ^{[10] [5]}. The sources here document both the calls for action and the constitutional explanation, but they do not include any primary document or official statement confirming the formal, procedural act of invocation — a limitation that prevents absolute certainty beyond the scope of these reports ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Bottom line

In the available reporting and legal summaries supplied, there is clear discussion and public urging to invoke the 25th Amendment, but no evidence that the constitutional mechanism was actually executed in the past two days; had an invocation occurred it would have required and produced formal written declarations and immediate, widely reported institutional responses, which the provided sources do not contain ^{[1] [3] [4]}.