Former CIA Director Brennan Claims 25th Amendment ‘Was Written With’ Trump ‘in Mind’ Amid Iran Tensions

Former CIA Director John Brennan stated publicly that he believes the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “was written with Donald Trumps in mind,” arguing that the provision exists precisely to address concerns about presidential fitness for office. The remarks came amid escalating tensions between the United States and Iran and renewed calls from some Democratic lawmakers to invoke the amendment to remove President Trump from power.

Brennan’s comments represent some of the most forceful language used by a former senior intelligence official regarding the question of presidential fitness. Brennan, a career intelligence officer who spent 25 years at the CIA before being appointed director by President Obama, has been one of Trump’s most prominent critics from the national security establishment. Trump revoked Brennan’s security clearance in August 2018, a virtually unprecedented step that the White House at the time described as a response to Brennan’s “erratic conduct and behavior.” The adversarial relationship between the two has been well-documented, with Brennan frequently accusing Trump of being compromised or unfit, and Trump characterizing Brennan as a politically motivated partisan. This history of personal antagonism is important context for evaluating the weight and motivations behind Brennan’s latest remarks.

The immediate catalyst for the renewed 25th Amendment discussion was the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani on January 3, 2020, at Baghdad International Airport. The strike dramatically escalated tensions between Washington and Tehran, with Iran vowing severe retaliation. In the days that followed, President Trump issued a series of public warnings, including a tweet threatening to strike 52 Iranian sites — some of them cultural — if Iran attacked American personnel or assets. The threat to target cultural sites drew bipartisan criticism and raised questions about potential violations of international law, specifically the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Defense Secretary Mark Esper subsequently stated publicly that the U.S. would follow the laws of armed conflict, appearing to walk back the president’s threat. It was against this backdrop of perceived recklessness that Brennan and several Democratic lawmakers intensified their rhetoric about Trump’s fitness for office.

Constitutional scholars have long debated the practical applicability of the 25th Amendment’s Section 4 in cases involving questions of judgment or temperament rather than clear physical or mental incapacitation. The amendment’s framers, including Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, envisioned scenarios such as a president suffering a stroke, falling into a coma, or experiencing a severe mental health crisis — not political disagreements over policy decisions, however controversial. Legal experts across the political spectrum have noted that invoking the amendment over policy disputes or rhetorical excesses would set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent, effectively transforming the mechanism into a parliamentary-style vote of no confidence that the Constitution does not contemplate. The extremely high procedural bar — requiring the vice president’s initiation, Cabinet majority support, and ultimately a two-thirds congressional vote — reflects the framers’ intent that the provision be reserved for extraordinary circumstances rather than serve as a political tool.

The broader political significance of Brennan’s comments lies in the ongoing debate about the boundaries of presidential war-making authority and the role of Congress in authorizing military action. In the wake of the Soleimani strike, the House of Representatives passed a War Powers Resolution aimed at constraining the president’s ability to take further military action against Iran without congressional approval. While that resolution was largely symbolic, it reflected deep unease — particularly among Democrats but also among some Republicans like Senator Mike Lee of Utah — about the executive branch’s expanding unilateral authority over military engagements. Whether the conversation about the 25th Amendment gains any traction beyond rhetorical opposition remains to be seen, but the episode underscores the heightened state of political polarization surrounding questions of executive power, national security decision-making, and the constitutional limits of presidential authority during the Trump era.