•She Cited ‘Extreme Mental Illness’ in Wake of Greenland Escalation
In a bold and unyielding declaration that has ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum, Democratic Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari of Arizona has called for the immediate invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office.
Her statement, posted on the social media platform X on January 19, 2026, accuses the president of being “extremely mentally ill” and warns that his actions are endangering the lives of all Americans.
This explosive claim comes amid escalating tensions over Trump’s renewed and aggressive push for U.S. control of Greenland, a move that has drawn international condemnation and raised alarms about the stability of his leadership.
Ansari’s post, which quickly amassed over 140,000 likes and thousands of reposts, reads in full: “The president of the United States is extremely mentally ill and it’s putting all of our lives at risk. The 25th Amendment exists for a reason—we need to invoke it immediately.”
Accompanied by a stark image emphasizing the urgency of her message, the statement has positioned Ansari at the forefront of a growing chorus of Democratic voices questioning Trump’s fitness for office.
As the youngest woman currently serving in Congress and a former Phoenix Vice Mayor, Ansari brings a fresh yet authoritative perspective to the fray, drawing on her background as the daughter of immigrants and her roles on key committees like Oversight and Natural Resources.
Her call reflects deep-seated concerns within the Democratic Party about the potential ramifications of Trump’s foreign policy decisions, particularly those perceived as erratic or driven by personal grievances.
The Greenland Controversy: A Catalyst for Crisis
The catalyst for Ansari’s impassioned plea traces back to a controversial text message sent by President Trump to Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre on January 18, 2026.
In the message, Trump explicitly linked his frustration over not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize—despite claiming to have “stopped 8 Wars PLUS”—to a hardened stance on acquiring Greenland.
He argued that Denmark lacks the capability to protect the territory from threats posed by Russia or China, questioned the historical basis of Danish ownership by noting that “a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also,” and insisted that NATO owes the United States for his purported contributions to the alliance.
Trump concluded by demanding “Complete and Total Control of Greenland” for global security, framing it as a non-negotiable imperative.
Støre’s response was swift and measured, reaffirming Norway’s support for Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland and clarifying that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by an independent committee, not the Norwegian government.
He proposed a de-escalatory call, emphasizing the need for unity amid broader global challenges. This exchange, made public by Støre on January 19, amplified international scrutiny of Trump’s approach, with critics viewing it as a dangerous blend of petulance and power politics.
Trump’s subsequent social media posts, including declarations of “no going back” on Greenland, further fueled perceptions of instability.
These remarks echo Trump’s earlier interest in purchasing Greenland during his first term, but the current iteration appears more forceful, intertwined with threats of tariffs on Europe and allusions to military implications.
This Greenland saga is not isolated; it unfolds against a backdrop of Trump’s broader foreign policy shifts, including criticisms of European leadership during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos and confusion between Greenland and Iceland in public statements.
Analysts suggest these actions could strain U.S. alliances, particularly within NATO, at a time when Arctic security is increasingly vital due to climate change and geopolitical rivalries.
Echoing Calls from Fellow Democrats
Ansari is not alone in her advocacy for the 25th Amendment. On the same day as her post, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts repeatedly urged its invocation, stating simply, “Invoke the 25th Amendment,” in multiple X posts.
Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove of California echoed this sentiment, declaring, “Donald Trump is unfit to lead and clearly out of control. Invoke the 25th Amendment.”
Other Democrats, including Representative Eric Swalwell, have joined the fray, highlighting a unified front against what they describe as Trump’s cognitive decline and erratic behavior.
These lawmakers argue that Trump’s fixation on Greenland, coupled with his Nobel-related grievances, exemplifies a leader detached from reality, posing risks to national and international security.
This is not the first time Democrats have invoked the 25th Amendment against Trump. Similar calls emerged during his first presidency, particularly after the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, though none advanced to fruition.
The current push, however, gains traction from the immediacy of the Greenland dispute, which has drawn responses from European allies and heightened fears of diplomatic fallout.
Decoding the 25th Amendment: Process and Prospects
The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, provides a mechanism for addressing presidential incapacity without resorting to impeachment.
Section 4 allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet—or a body designated by Congress—to declare the president unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.
Upon such a declaration, the vice president assumes acting presidential authority. If the president contests this, Congress must decide by a two-thirds vote in both chambers within 21 days whether to sustain the removal.
Experts note that invoking Section 4 has never occurred in U.S. history, making it a long-shot proposition.
With Republicans controlling key levers of power and Vice President JD Vance unlikely to lead such an effort, the calls may serve more as political theater than a viable path to removal.
Nonetheless, they underscore deepening partisan divides and concerns over executive stability.
Public Reactions and Broader Implications
Ansari’s statement has elicited a torrent of responses on social media, reflecting the polarized nature of American politics.
Supporters praised her courage, with one user declaring, “We NEEDED to IMPEACH his Felon ass MONTHS ago. 25th Amendment removal is better than nothing, but he deserves to be in JAIL.”
Critics, however, were vehement in their opposition, mocking the congresswoman with comments like, “Do you practice being this stupid or is it a gift from God?” and labeling her views as “mental illness” themselves.
A sampling of visible replies indicates that approximately 92% disagree or strongly oppose her position, highlighting the challenges Democrats face in swaying public opinion amid Trump’s strong base.
The White House has yet to issue a formal response to these calls, though Trump allies have dismissed them as partisan hysteria.
As the controversy simmers, it raises profound questions about leadership accountability, mental fitness in high office, and the delicate balance of power in a divided nation.
Whether this leads to formal action or fades into the annals of political rhetoric, it underscores the high stakes of Trump’s second term and the enduring tensions shaping U.S. governance in 2026.
Share This Post