How to Remove Trump from office under the 25th Amendment

I am not an attorney or political scientist. I am a researcher who studies narcissism. The effort to remove Trump under the 25th amendment has been for narcissistic personality disorder (NPD)/malignant narcissism. I was brought into this discussion by reporters asking me for my thoughts (which I wrote in detail here).

Today, the calls for Trump’s removal under the 25th still include narcissism but also highlight “instability.” I think people found it challenging to argue that narcissism was unusual or detrimental to political leaders. Instability is an easier claim to make because it is harder to define. It is also more dangerous in some contexts. Narcissism is rational in that it is predictable. If people criticize Trump we know he will say something reactive and over the top on Twitter. It looks crazy, but we all knew it was going to happen. “Instability” is dangerous because it is by definition irrational or unpredictable. Instability does have clear advantages in negotiating — people are scared of unstable and erratic people with nuclear weapons, for example, so it is easy for them to gain compliance from others— but instability is a challenging trait in a leader.

My goal today is to describe how removing Trump under the 25th amendment could be done with the lowest probability of extreme civil unrest or a civil war. If it is going to happen at least I want it done correctly. And, yes, I am aware that the U.S. intelligence agencies have a long history of overthrowing or attempting to overthrow lawful political leaders, most recently in Libya, The Ukraine, and Syria, but they are really bad at it. I don’t trust them to figure this one out.

Narcissism is not grounds for removing a political leader from office. Most systems for appointing leaders pull for narcissism, especially during times of chaos and instability. If you try to sell the Trump is a super bad narcissist as opposed to all the good ones typically in leadership line, people won’t buy it. They are home watching Game of Thrones thinking that Circe, who is narcissistic, actual does a pretty good job because she is a rational actor — vain, defensive, self-absorbed, vengeful — but predictably so. Every leader has to be highly Machiavellian, or manipulative; those who are transparently honorable leaders keep getting their heads chopped off. The leaders that people are really scared of are the ones who are cruelly psychopathic and impulsive/unstable. The plot of Game of Thrones rests on a couple of these erratic, psychopathic leaders: The mad dragon king who messed things up in the first place and the little psychopath Joffrey Baratheon.

So, when choosing a mental disorder for Trump, it needs to be:

Putting these pieces together — a late onset disorder that leads to impulsive and irrational behavior that is grounded in the central nervous system — you are left will some form of late onset dementia perhaps linked to transient ischemic attacks, or mini-strokes. There are many specific disorders that could meet these criteria, so I will call it “Disorder X.” You can argue that Disorder X interacts with Trump’s already bombastic, narcissistic and risk-taking character, perhaps amplifying it, but the key has to be in the brain dysfunction.

The current response to Trump in Washington (and I am using this term to describe the political establishment) is something like: Look at Trump, he is a narcissistic wild man who won’t play the rules. We hate him!

This is a reasonable argument to make when you are talking to a room full of people in Washington who already agree with you. Trump’s base of support would respond differently: Exactly, Trump, is a narcissistic wild man who won’t play the rules. That’s why we voted for him! You are actually the people we really don’t like. It sounds like you missed the memo.

There is an alternative take on this debate that would minimize the push back. Washington could respond to Trump with sympathy rather than hostility. Look, we always knew Trump was narcissistic and a bit of a wild man. We didn’t like it that much, but we also know that is what a lot of his supporters liked about him. But it now seems like there is actually something wrong with him. He just seems unstable in a different way. Maybe he needs help? We are starting to feel sorry for him.

This approach is much harder to respond to. Trump’s base knows their message has been received and that Washington appreciates why the base supports Trump. But they are also picking up on something sympathetic from Trump’s enemies.

The diagnosis of Disorder X has to be sold to the public. The good news is that the disorder is late onset and neurologically based. That has two crucial implications. First, Trump supporters are not stupid or were not conned. They couldn’t be expected to see this coming. Second, Trump can retain his status as a fighter and moral figure. Nobody can blame a guy for being laid low by dementia.

Here is how I would sell it. On the academic and medical side, I would start interviewing psychiatrists and neurologists about how the disorder could come about. I would have neuroscientists on news networks showing images of brains. People trust neuroscientists and images of brains. There is already plenty of buzz in the research community that Trump could have something neurological going on that leads to his odd patterns of speech and erratic style (note: this is outside my area of expertise and I have no idea either way). I don’t think it would be challenging to get people to present these ideas publicly.

On the media and political side, I would start with expressions of concern. I would pepper the airwaves with these for a couples weeks. And then I would bring in people from the political right. They would talk about their concerns. There is a large group of never Trumpers that would jump at the chance.

The big closing argument on the right would be the comparison with Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a great conservative leader who was brought down by Alzheimer’s. At the time, Reagan stayed in office even with symptoms, because people were so much less accepting on mental illness. But in hindsight, we as Republicans should have invoked the 25th amendment and had Bush step in as President.

Trust in the three branches of federal government — Executive (president), Congress (house and senate) and Supreme Court (judiciary) are each below 30% — and shows a steep downward trend from the 1970s for the Executive and Congress, and a shallow downward trend for the Supreme court. Trust in the military has grown in the opposite direction, and has remained at about 50% over the last decade. To put this in perspective, people trust the major branches of government today less than they trusted the military at the tail end of the Vietnam war.

What this means is that if President Trump is removed from office under the 25th amendment, the military needs to play a central role in selling this to the nation. In this specific case, I would want to see the three (former) generals in the White House — Kelly, Mattis, and Masterson — front and center. Of the three, I think Mattis would have the most respect from Trump’s base. I have no data on this, but he appears as non-political as a general can be. Kelly is Chief of Staff and might also serve the role. Masterson is a little too slick for the sales job and seen by many in Trump’s base as an unfair replacement for Lt. General Mike Flynn.

I know that selling a military coup sounds like something out of a spy novel, but it fits the American identity. Our generals are not classic “strong man” leaders. They are seen as serious non-political public servants who take an oath to the Constitution and are frequently mistreated by corrupt or dishonest politicians. And there is a strong historical connection — our nation was founded by a General, George Washington, who led a revolt against a powerful and corrupt king. Of course, lots of generals throughout history have overthrown nations, but Washington was unique in that he was a leader who relinquished power willingly — something not seen since the legendary Roman leader Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

Making Trump’s removal from office look like a legitimate concern for a severe mental health issue rather than a coup would a much easier sell if policies didn’t change dramatically, at least at first. If Trump is out, and there is a major policy shift, this will raise intense suspicion and bad will from Trump’s (heavily armed) base.

One way to avoid this is to rapidly pass a bill that is nominally consistent with Trump’s platform or campaign promises. Ideally, this would be done in honor of Trump. The bill itself doesn’t matter — it just has to do with healthcare, tax reform, or immigration reform. This might not be palatable to everyone, but it a key to making the coup look legitimate rather than political.

The only other option that I can think of to keep the country unified is an outside attack a la’ 9/11. This would work — groups band together rapidly in the face of substantial external threat — but the cost is very steep.

Removing a sitting president involves huge political risk. Just reflect on what happened to the U.S. after John F. Kennedy was removed from office. It kicked off an incredibly turbulent time in the U.S. One that I believe was largely negative and still has repercussions today.

Removing Trump has similarly large downside risks, especially as his base is solid and armed. It is only 30 percent of the population, but that means we will have tens of millions of Americans marching on Washington. Therefore, removal from office under the 25th amendment needs to be done in a way that:

My model for doing this would be to use a diagnosis of a late onset neurological illness or disorder, have the generals in the White House support the decision for invoking the 25th amendment, and then enact some legislation consistent with Trump’s agenda or platform.

To be extremely clear: I am not suggesting that any of this be done. I do not believe in overturning elections except in extreme criminal cases like treason that should be handled via an open impeachment process. Democracy is imperfect, but it has a built in system to overturn mistakes every 2, 4, or 6 years. That said, if people are going to overturn this election via the mechanism supplied by the 25th amendment, I want it done in a way that minimizes the risk of a violent civil uprising.

Related posts:

If you read what the Monero prediction cryptocurrency promises for the near future, then you can finally get confused in numbers. So, Satis Group speaks of an increase of 38 000%. By the way, after…

According to Constance M. Cherry, author of The Worship Architect, the Christian year “refers to a yearlong calendar that marks time according to God’s activities rather than ours.” It tells the…

Content is the lifeblood of any website. It’s what keeps visitors coming back for more, and it’s what helps you achieve your business goals. In addition to these benefits, content can also help you…