Politicians are reviewing procedures which enable Congress to remove a president, amid growing concerns about Donald Trump’s presidency.
A working group has been launched to review the 25th Amendment in the US Constitution- the clause which sets out how a president can be ousted from office. Democratic representative Earl Blumenauer, who represents Oregon, launched the group on Wednesday.
Mr Blumenauer has cited concerns that President Trump has made claims which are demonstrably untrue such as exaggerating the turnout at his inauguration and repeating baseless claims about voter fraud.
He told the House: “Like many people, I’ve noticed renewed interest in the 25th Amendment, as we’ve seen erratic behavior out of the White House and inability of Donald Trump to even tell whether it rained on him during his inaugural speech and repeating false statements that are demonstrably wrong.”
He added: “For a mentally unstable, paranoid or delusional president, the 25th Amendment has no guarantee of its application. In fact, it’s likely that it would fail.
“I submit that the best fail-safe to a president who is emotionally unstable would be to impanel our previous presidents and vice presidents to make that determination. We need to have a mechanism that can be reliable, command public confidence and be above politics.”
Mr Blumenauer’s comments come amid growing speculation about Mr Trump’s state of mind. Healthcare professionals wrote an open letter in the New York Times expressing concern that he could be experiencing mental health issues. However, no medical professionals familiar with Mr Trump’s health have said so and the White House have strongly denied he is experiencing any such conditions.
Other mental health professionals have denounced the speculation, arguing such discussions amount to armchair psychiatry without evidence and can be unfair and stigmatising for people who experience mental health issues.
Join our new commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies